Why I changed my order to a 07 Camry

I was in the same situation and as a 4 time Camry owner since 1990, I considered it 'my' car. The 4c Camry's have been absolutley bulletproof for 15+ yrs at 30000 to 50000 miles / yr.

But I purchased a Prius at the end of Nov anyway. My comfort with Toyota was one reason. The size, comfort, ultra efficiency and environmental impact matched my needs better.

I think the styling and new content make the '07 the best Camry ever - then to make it a hybrid - Wow!.

Your reasons for waiting for the new TCH go to something I have been saying for a while. The Prius ( Lat. 'to go before' ) is/was a precursor to mainstreaming hybrid technology into the market via the quintessential American family sedan. I think this was the longterm strategy since well before 2000. Major product/technology shifts dont appear like mushrooms. I'd be willing to bet that in the mid-90's when Toyota discovered that their hybrid system was a viable powerplant the product planners decided that it had to be part of the Camry line and it had to be in a good package. But how to get such a strange idea into the public's consciousness. Get an influential, concerned market segment to adopt a vehicle unique to itself, a prophet if you will. With the acceptance from this leadership group, and barring any major errors, the rest of the market will see the benefits and be willing try this revolutionary ( for autos) system.

While the typical Camry buyer probably will still be looking for economy and reliability in a 4c power plant there are a lot of potential 'conquest sales' that will only consider a V6. Give a late 90's Taurus/Sable or Intrepid owner a stylish new vehicle with more power than what they've had for 8 yrs and then give them 40 mpg - in a Toyota!!! ... and in a Camry at that!!! 46000 units may not be half enough production.

 

I wonder when we will see the Camry Hybrid delivered to people? I can't see them keeping up with demand.

The Prius have been VERY succeful at making people hybrid aware. I think/hope Toyota will keep the Prius as the launch veichle for new technology (not only hybrids) but it will always be a marginal seller. The Camry Hybrid on the other hand should appeal to the mass public. I wonder if they really can manufacture enough hybrid systems to meet demand.

 

No it doesn't; weight is not a factor in keeping something at a constant speed on a level road. The reason is because even though heavier objects are harder to accelerate, they're equally harder to decelerate. So a heavy object, unpowered, will slow down much less than a lighter object. But it's harder to bring back up to speed so it evens out; the weight factor is cancelled from both sides of the equation, basically.

Of course a light car has a clear advantage accelerating or going uphill, which is why they get such better mileage. Heavier cars can coast farther but that's not nearly enough to make up for the acceleration disadvantage.

 

I believe the plan is March launch for the new ICE then June/July for the TCH withthe first ones coming from Japan and KY joining shipments in Sept/OCT. I've heard that production is foreseen to be about 4000/mo, which is only 10% of total Camry sales. Like the Prius demand will speak.

The availability of components is also an issue. I dont believe that they would or could jump to 200K units in the immediate future. At 4000 units a month it's about half of the Prius' volume and about 2-3 units per store per month.

 

I agree with this, but you left out that it takes more energy to maintain that speed than if it were lighter... don't let reason cause you to not see the obvious.

Thats the mistake people make when they look around and see this great big universe and its delicate balance down to an atomic level and still say there is no God because they can't understand or see him.

There are factors of resistance to gravity etc.

To illustrate my point.... if you get an 18 wheeler moving 5 mph and then you get a motorcycle moving 5 mph.... I would rather run behind the motorcycle to maintain its speed rather than the 18 wheeler!

You can get all technical with me and tell me how thats not a fair test because of resistance to bearings and 18 tires, but if you put the 80000 lbs the truck weighs and put it on 4 wheels you would have the same problem.

Gravity is always wanting to stop something that weighs more. True if they were in space and not subject to any resistance, then a marble would continue to move as easy as 80000 lbs. But in the real world, resistance increases as an object is "crammed" into the pavement from more weight.

To further illustrate my point... it takes less gas to move an empty truck verses full.
Even for every 200lbs you add to the prius, 1 mph is supposed to be lost?

This is all wrong... any good math equation fails if you leave out just one factor.... gravity!

 

windstrings, I have a problem with your argument. I agree that something that weighs more takes more energy to maintain a given speed on the highway, but I don't think that's because of gravity only; I think it's mainly because of the rolling resistance of the tires. If you put a 40 ton truck in a vacuum on a flat highway with zero rolling resistance tires, it will take zero energy to maintain any speed even on a neutron star. Similarly, it will also take a light motorcycle no energy to maintain any speed.

Gravity doesn't "want" to slow anything rolling on a flat surface. It's the rolling resistance that causes objects to slow down. It's true that there would be no rolling resistance without gravity, so maybe that's what you meant?

 

Exactly... gravity is what causes the pressure on the bearings, the traction on the road increases with weight due to gravity...

Your 40 ton truck in a vacuum will only remove wind resistance.... everything else will still apply.

The vacuum would in essence be "perfect" aerodynamics!... but weight would still be the main consideration.... otherwise you could load "any" rig down with bricks or rocks and it would still get the same MPG.... If your reasoning had strength, adding cement to a cement truck or oil to an oil tanker would not affect mpg? But why does it?.. Aerodynamics were not changed because of the weight?... So why was the MPG increased?

Get a tater sack and fill it with styrofoam and run around the block.
Now fill it with bricks and run around the block?... your physical size and demension didn't change? your aerodynamics have not changed? So why is it so hard to run around the block with a sack of bricks?

 

Sloopg - going back to the original post, how did you determine that you will be hit by the AMT in 2006? I'm wondering about myself, but have not seen any tables or formulas out there for 2006. Maybe you have done your calculations for 2005 and it impacts you, and it will only be worse in 2006??

 

So to paraphrase your post, having a heavier vehicle doesn't guarantee you will be safer in a crash, but it does guarantee the people in the smaller vehicle will be injured.

The only thing makes the Prius or any smaller car unsafe are the big SUVs. Even the insurance companies agree. That's why they raised the rates for small cars a few years back.

 

From your engineering and math background you know that the effect of a crash is the difference in the sum of the two vectors.
a.) if two vehicles going in the same direction both at exactly 50 mph when the rear vehicle touches the front vehicle the result result will be .. nothing;
b.) two vehicles in a parking lot going in opposite directions @ 25 mph will result in the occupants in each vehicle feeling a deceleration as if they had hit a barrier at 50 mph;
c.) one vehicle travelling @ 50 mph hitting a barrier is the same as b.) above.
So the frontal impact test as they are done are accurate.

The IIHS however puts in the disclaimer ( from their website ) 'However, don't compare ratings across vehicle size groups because size and weight influence occupant protection in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford more protection than smaller, lighter ones' This goes to your point that F=MA holding true. The difference isnt 'light years' though (see below).

To help mititage this discrepancy vehicles are designed to deflect the energy of a collision around and away from the passenger cabin through the use of crumple zones and the design of structural members outside the cabin. Using High Strength steel in the pillars and frame of the cabin makes the passenger cabin more resistant to deformation even in severe crashes.

Anecdotal to us but maybe not to Toyota, when the Gen2 Prius first came out in Oct 2003 auto journalists were invited to Toyota's testing lab to see a Gen2 Prius crashed into a Land Cruiser. The reporter's comment after seeing the result was that both vehicles survived surprisingly well. http://tinyurl.com/cheqe

I'll certainly agree that if I'm going to be hit let it be an Aveo rather than an 18-wheeler.

 

This isn't quite right. If two vehicles, each of the same mass going 25 mph, collide head on, they will both decelerate from 25 mph to 0 mph. This is equivalent to a vehicle hitting a fixed barrier at 25 mph, not 50 mph. You were probably thinking about a vehicle going 50 mph hitting a stationary (but not fixed) vehicle of the same mass. The end result in that situation is both vehicles moving at 25 mph in the same direction as the incoming vehicle. Thus both vehicles would have a change in velocity of 25 mph, mimicing the head on collision.

Small detail, and I agree with the other parts of your post. I also agree that the insurance for SUVs should be higher given they have a higher expected damage to other vehicles in a collision (insert personal bias: and that SUV and especially pickup drivers are generally more aggressive and are more likely to cause accidents in the first place).

 

Sad but true. It made the news; people complained; but they still went forward with it. I believe the logic was associating the premiums with those in the most risk. But yes, it is unfair.

Kinda like taxing crime victims because they use the police services isn't it.

 

Not exactly.

THe reply from Plasm was written very well. Consider the following situations of 3 vehicles.

1- 3000 lb Prius with an excellent crash rating
2- 5000 lb SUV with a mediocre crash rating
3- 100,000 lb 18 wheeler with a horrible crash rating.

If all 3 were to be driven into an immovable barrier... then the prius occupant should have the best results. The SUV would be in 2nd place... and the 18 wheeler would not fare well.

However... if you were to change the crash to a head on collision between two vehicles... The Prius driver would probably not fare well against the SUV... and certainly would do horrible in a head on collision with the 18 wheeler.

Also... to correct the mistatement made by someone about two cars of equal mass having a head-on collision while each is going 25 mph.... this is NOT the same as hitting a solid barrier at 50mph. This is the same as hitting a solid barrier at 25mph assuming that both cars have the same mass.

One way to visualize this is to imagine two cars each with perfectly flat front ends getting in a head on collision. If the two cars had equal mass, and you were to watch the crash from the side... the two "flat" front ends would touch... and the surface would remain perfectly still as both cars crumpled together, each dissapating the kinetic energy of their 25mph speed. Note that this would be the exact same result as if one of the cars was to crash into a solid barrier at 25mph (not 50 mph)

/Jim

 

Humm... that one has me thinking?.... so according to your analogy, two flat bullets shot into each other would only get as flat as if each were shot into a wall?

Its not all about Mass?... what happened to velocity?

Energy = Mass X velocity.

More energy is dissipated when two objects going 25mph meet each other than when only one object going 25 meets an immovable object.

You forgot to add the mass X 2 along with the velocity X 2?

The surrounding world does not matter.... the opposing object your hitting becomes the only world there is and you are hitting it with double the intensity or speed.


The way your thinking, they should cancel each other out so each person can walk out without a scratch and thier vehicles untouched?.... are you sure your thinking about this right?

It has all to do with the "direction" of the masses!...

Its always a bit easier to "exaggerate" the word picture to get a better handle of the effects of energy.... its not quite so subliminal that way.


Lets take the one car going 25mph and put it against another car going 100mph.
Will the car going 25mph be more damaged now?
Why?

More energy was transferred into it!
Both cars will still be more damaged than if they would have hit a non moving solid object?

A good way to think of it is to "forget" about the other car... just think about the car your in. If it hits mass not moving, the damage will be less than if that same mass it hits is moving in the opposite direction towards you!

There is a reason "head - ons" are more deadly.

I'm not a physicist, but this seems clear to me?

 

I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, but it makes sense to me...I think. Think of those balls on a string that used to be so popular in offices. The amount they swing from center to apex was the same if the ball on the other side was held still, or swung out so they hit in the middle.

 

Not quite. Mass times velocity is momentum (p=mv). Work, often called energy, is force times displacement (W=Fx). You're confusing things a bit, and thinking of kinetic energy: KE = 1/2mv^2. Those that are familiar with differential calculus will note that momentum is simply the derivative of kinetic energy with respect to velocity (dKE/dv = p).

 

Yes, I spotted that right away! :lol: