That Powerful New Four-Cylinder 2018 Toyota Camry? It's Not That Quick

Timothy Cain
by Timothy Cain

Your excitement knows just cause. Upon reporting that the 2018 Toyota Camry would feature the American midsize segment’s most powerful base engine, the masses descended. We could see the hair standing up on the back of your neck through the series of tubes that is the internet.

In the 2018 Toyota Camry L, LE, SE, and XLE trims, the Camry’s new 2.5-liter four-cylinder produces 203 horsepower and 184 lb-ft of torque, at 6,600 and 5,000 rpm, respectively. In the 2018 Toyota Camry XSE, however, the Dynamic Force 2.5-liter produces — wait for it — 206 horsepower and 186 lb-ft of torque, gains of three ponies and two lb-ft.

So what do those major power gains, up from 178 horses and 170 lb-ft in the 2017 Camry, get the owner of the new 2018 Toyota Camry?

Fuel economy, that’s what.

In a 0-60 mph test of the new 2018 Camry in 203-horsepower SE trim, the 25-horsepower increase netted a decrease of one-tenth of a second. The four-cylinder Camry, despite offering only seven fewer bhp than my in-laws’ famed 2004 Camry V6, did not become a quick car. Car And Driver says nought to highway speed takes 7.9 seconds, more than half-a-second off the pace of that still-vibrant 2004 Camry we’ve reviewed here before. (Specs say the 2018 Camry 2.5 SE weighs 40 pounds more than the equivalent 2017.)

More importantly, Car And Driver says the 50-70 mph test, the test that reflects the kind of power usage you require in real life, is four-tenths of a second worse in the 2018 Camry than in the 2017 Camry, dropping to 6.0 seconds because of what C/D says calls a “slow-to-downshift” eight-speed automatic. That’s substantially more sluggish than the Mazda 6.

What’s the big deal? To be honest, there isn’t one. When it comes to four-cylinder expectations, the 2018 Camry won’t prove underwhelming. Better yet, C/D’s fuel economy testing revealed a four-cylinder 2018 Camry SE that achieved 45 miles per gallon on a 75-mph highway test and matched the EPA’s 32-mpg combined rating over the course of nearly 1,200 miles.

Camry customers, of which there are bijillions, won’t mind the fact that all of that extra horsepower doesn’t make the new Camry any quicker (or slower). But they’ll be thrilled by the fact that the car is sufficiently powerful and stunningly efficient.

[Image: Toyota]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars and Instagram.

Timothy Cain
Timothy Cain

More by Timothy Cain

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 37 comments
  • Panther Platform Panther Platform on Sep 22, 2017

    As a near 60 year old who drove Malaise Era vehicles such as an 81 Mercury Cougar, a 78 Mercury Monarch, and an early Ford Escort it is mindboggling to me how powerful (and efficient) cars are now. I have fond memories of me flooring my "Cougar" before a base of a mountain (or really any steep incline) to get as much momentum as possible before the car ran out of steam. I would then need to shift down as the car almost came to a dead stop as it limped forward. Back then this Camery would have seemed like the child of a Ferrari and a rocket ship.

  • HotPotato HotPotato on Sep 30, 2017

    I can't believe I'm saying this in a year that is not 1992, but these new Camrys are impressive. Sportier styling and ampler power than you'd expect in a Toyota, and even more fuel economy than you'd expect in a Toyota. The hybrid is especially impressive, and may qualify as the first Toyota I've ever actually kinda wanted.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next