First drive: Toyota Camry Hybrid

By Bruce McMahon
The Courier-Mail
13 June 2008

In the US Camry Hybrid comes with a 33kW electric motor, 110kW, 2.4 litre petrol engine and Constantly Variable Transmission. Photo Gallery

Judders under load give way to a free spirit.

The silent Toyota Camry Hybrid starts with a slight judder, the electric motor maybe deciding if it needs help to get away.

This hesitation is sometimes felt at freeway speeds on our US test drive, where the Camry has cruised quietly at 120km/h, running electric before needing more power to overtake.

In the US the Prius's bigger brother Toyota Camry Hybrid comes with a 33kW electric motor, 110kW, 2.4 litre petrol engine and Constantly Variable Transmission.

Find cheap fuel: you can search by suburb or postcode

For the most part, aside from those occasional judders under heavy load, it is a quiet and comfortable sedan.

The front end on this one was a touch doughy, and not as responsive at the steering wheel as Australian petrol Camrys.

Whether the different feel was down to the Hybrids' steering and suspension or North American specifications, we're not sure.

Is the price of petrol hurting you? Tell us how ...

Yet the electric-petrol-CVT powertrain and a soft front end did not stop this Camry Hybrid from a couple of free-spirited runs, one behind a pack of bikers on the twisting, turning Highway One north of San Francisco.

And through all of this — climbing steep city streets, running with the pack down freeways and mixing it on country roads — the car returned just under nine litres per 100km. That's not bad for a fair-sized family sedan.

Luggage space is more limited than in a normal Camry, but it is a usable sedan not lacking any traditional passenger car attributes.

Related stories Hybrid car to be built here

Hybrid Camry right direction

Hybrid car to be built here

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 34 comments

I drive a 2.5 diesel 5spd tiptronic style automatic KIA Sorento 4 wheel drive which weighs 2.2 tonnes. On paper it has about 126kw and 400nm of torque. When you put your foot down it has real verve. It is capable of towing 2.8 tonnes around Australia. It has a part time 4 WD system with a low range gearbox and normally drives through the back wheels. This rear wheel drive arrangement and a very small turning circle allows it be parked in spots normally unavailable to large cars. Parking and narrow street u-turns are a breeze.
Non-towing Brisbane suburban driving with occasional forays to the Sunshine or Gold Coasts, consistently yields about 8.5 to 9 litres per 100klm. Please explain how a Toyota hybrid, no doubt costing more than my KIA , has any advantages whatsoever. By the way even servicing the KIA is cheap because service intervals are 15,000 klm apart.
My only bugbear is getting ripped off when I buy diesel and Government blind-Freddy attitude in allowing this monumental rip-off to continue.
Steve Mahoney of REDCLIFFE QLD Posted on 18 June 2008 2:15pm
What a joke!! 9litres/100kms is NOT fuel efficient and our beaut government are investing $30million in this - are they serious? Small turbo diesels run at +/-5-6litres/100km, thats where the real savings are plus no expensive battery to replace.
solar man of Toowoomba Posted on 18 June 2008 10:15am
Wow, 9 litres per 100 Km’s - sorry I just don’t see the point when any diesel will do better. A hybrid taxi makes sense as they do all city driving where the hybrid works at its best but otherwise…

What we need is a diesel Commodore/Ford, decent diesel fuel (as per Europe), better LPG systems but not hybrids.
Scott of Townsville Posted on 18 June 2008 9:31am
the judder may be a sign of CVT wear and tear, rather than the ECU deciding if it needs electric or petrol power. CVT in theory saves fuel, together with this hybrid battery technology. however, studies have shown CVT generally have a shorter lifespan than a conventional auto transmission, and car batteries do not last as long as the car itself. both are big money items to repair/replace. you could be saving petrol, but monetary wise, you are worse off.
Pete of melbourne Posted on 18 June 2008 7:39am
Let me get this right. The car costs $5000 more to buy. You need to replace the battery pack every 5 years at a cost of around $5000 each and it only saves 1 litre of petrol per 100km of travel. This has got to be the biggest fizzer in history.

Before the car would repay itself in fuel savings I would need to buy another battery that by the way is really very bad for the environment in itself.

Why would I buy a hyrid with these kinds of numbers. Another disadvantage is that the car would be a Toyota (not my favourite brand).

I voted for Kevin Rudd because I thought he had vision. Now that I see him backing such a lame duck I wonder if I have made the right choice.

On a slightly different note, my BF Falcon XR6 when driven really really gently returns around 9.0l/100km and at least I look cool driving it.
Sasha of Darwin Posted on 18 June 2008 4:41am
To the nay sayers—- hybrid drivetrains max out their efficiency on inner city, rush hour stop and go style driving. Country, non stop go driving does not yield the maximum returns. Of course it needs a mix of the two to recharge, so if you live a bit outside the city and work in the city then this is ideal conditions for the hybrid drivetrain.
Jorgen of Glenroy Posted on 18 June 2008 4:13am
Do yourselves a favour and buy a modern diesel vehicle and not a hybrid. I own a Peugeot 307 2.0 litre HDI diesel, and have averaged 5.3 litres per hundred since new over twelve months ago. This is used in mixed driving, and even in the city I can return figures which make Toyota’ s hybrids look absolutely fuel guzzlers.
Trevor Posted on 18 June 2008 3:40am
i get 8lt per 100 on hwy driving in my 2.5 xtrail i dont think i need to say any more
richard lawrence of mandurah 6210 Posted on 17 June 2008 8:24pm
Toyota is giving ppl a choice with a bigger car than their Prius & ANY improvement over a Conform-odore is to be applauded. This may not be the ultimate solution, but at least they are pointing the way fwd! Hyundai may be onto something better when it releases an LPG/Hybrid shortly, but John; u r WRONG; the hybrid uses the elec.motor more in the city & that is where u will get most gains & advantage over a petrol car!
yelafella of Melb. Posted on 17 June 2008 5:35pm
What a load of rubbish for that sort of fuel economy. In fact the camry is not an economical car in any event and what is clear for Aust at least is that we are now buying more cars of 1.6 ltr engine size or less. A hybrid car with a large engine cannot make a difference where it counts and that is around the city. If you want to save fuel, get a Getz 1.4 ltr or a Yaris 1.3ltr or similar because that is the only way to keep the fuel bills down. You just have to settle for a small car with a small engine for around the city, or a diesel engine of up to 2.0ltrs. The rest are not in the long term game.
John Ralph Posted on 17 June 2008 3:01am
Just under 9 litres per 100km just not good enough .
Toyota cars and Hybrids are overrated.
I have owned a Toyota my present KIA has proved more reliable.
Paul Posted on 15 June 2008 2:31pm
Just under 9 liters Per hundred k’s isn’t fuel effeient at all!
My commodore uses about 10 liters per hundred k’s in mixed driving and it’s a bigger and more powerful car, but it gets about 7.3 liters on the freeway.
This just proves how useless and expensive hybrids are, not to mention the extra toll they take on the environment because of the extra input needed in the manafacturing process. In the short to medium term, LPG and diesel is the way foward.
karl Posted on 14 June 2008 4:06pm
9.0 litres per hunded! Thats no good.

My lady friends fossil fuel only focus returns 7.6 its almost as bit as the camry and has a 500 litre boot. & its magic to drive.

& I’m averaging 9.5 out of my 2.5tonne discovery turbo diesel.

Again toyota shows hybrid is a triumph of marketing over substance.
catalyst Posted on 14 June 2008 11:46am
The fuel savings and the loss of boot space hardly seem worthwhile when you factor in te $5,000 additional purchase cost and the prospect of replacing batteries after 8 years at over $6,000. In Australia, it would make more sense to make a dedicated LPG version using the next generation LPG technology, that is, conformable tanks and liquid LPG injection. This equates to a no-compromise car, same boot space as petrol, no loss of power or economy, and hybrid rivaling fuel costs… oh and there no expensive battery packs to replace or dispose of.
Nicholas K of Melbourne Posted on 13 June 2008 6:14pm

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

Enter your comments:

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Full name (Will appear on site) Email address: Location

Antispam code