Can anyone give me some advice? I will soon buy a car and it's down to the
2003 4 cyl Camry and the 2003 V6 Taurus, and many friends recommend the
Camry but I'm worried about it's power going up hills.

Can you tell me how the 2003 Camry responds to steep inclines, hills and
mountains? Memories of another, lesser, four-cylinder twenty years ago have
me gunshy about the less than a V6.

Thanks for your advice to anyone who responds. Sorry if this is too stupid
a question for this group.

Michael

"Michael Singleton" <msingleton@sc.rr.com> writes:

I think the question you need to ask is, why on earth would you EVER buy a
Taurus over a Camry?

Either save up for the V6 Camry or just get the 4. You'll be glad later.

The 2002-2003 Camry has an improved 4-cyl engine with 150 or so horsepower
and should be fast enough.

Last summer I took a business trip here in Colorado through the Rocky
Mountains. Obviously there are several passes to go over. At the time, I was
driving a 2000 Honda Accord EX-V6, with 200 hp. The rental car for my trip was
a 2002 Toyota Camry LE 4-cyl. I was a little apprehensive at the thought of not
having my V6 for the passes, but the Camry did great! I was rather impressed
with the available power for such steep passes. Don't even consider the
Taurus....it'll be in the shop all the time anyway. ;-) You could always save
up for the 2003 Honda Accord V6...with an awesome 240 hp.

Jase
2003 Honda Accord EX-V6
2000 Honda Accord EX-V6
1994 Honda Accord EX
1991 Honda Accord EX

"Michael Singleton" <msingleton@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ivmRa.239895$_w.9396495@twister.southeast.rr. com
159 hp for the 4cyl Camry vs. 157 hp for the "standard" Taurus V6.

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:57:40 GMT, "Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net>
wrote:


Wouldn't torque be of more inportance in 'hill climbing' ??

"R.M. Drupsteen" <nospam#R.Drupsteen@Bouwfonds.nl> wrote in message
news:fpochvo07tgldc2oqqfg5un440vujt6lio@4ax.com
Yes and No. It depends on where the torque comes from. When you have an
engine capable of producing "work" (horsepower) at RPM higher than its
maximum torque point, you get torque by working the gearbox aggressively
to muliply modest crankshaft torque. Torque (twisting effort) at the
crankshaft is touted when a minimum number of gearbox selections (our
American 3 speed automatic tradition) are available to multiply
crankshaft torque so.... the engine must be the torque producer.

In other words, use the tachometer. Find out were maximum torque output
RPM is and don't be the least bit afraid of running the engine in that
range (between max torque and a wee bit below max horsepower) whenever
the most pulling power is needed for an indefinite period of time.
SHIFT!

If a diesel engine is in question, limit your maximum continuous RPM to
the maximum torque RPM as diesels amost never produce more horsepower
beyond the maximum torque RPM.

(retired trucker)
--�

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Having owning a 1999 V6 Taurus which was pretty useless on hills, I opted
for a V6 Camry. I have gone on various inclines thru mountains and it works
just fine. The 2003 Camry is a 210 hp and 5 speed auto but recommends
premium fuel. The mpg that I get on my camry more then makes up for premium
fuel.

Save your $$ and get the Camry V6
"Michael Singleton" <msingleton@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ivmRa.239895$_w.9396495@twister.southeast.rr. com...

I had 2 91 Taurus's... a wagon and a sedan. Something broke on them
every 3 months. The 6 back then was not very strong but that was a
long time ago. I currently have a 2001 Avalon and I am not at all
impressed with it compared to my Chysler 300M but I would still thing
your obvious choice is the Camry.



"Michael Singleton" <msingleton@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ivmRa.239895$_w.9396495@twister.southeast.rr. com...

But the Taurus was probably discounted thousands more than the Camry.
Not recommending the Taurus but I think the depreciation difference is
overstated on imports versus domestic when you consider the initial
rebates and discounts.


"ROBMURR" <robmurr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030717003151.21731.00000062@mb-m07.aol.com...

When we bought our 91 Taurus's, we were moving from 1983 4WD Tercel
wagons. The Taurus's felt like race cars (when they weren't in the
shop).



"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xuBRa.6997$Mc.566825@newsread1.prod.itd.earth link.net...

I was referring to the 2003 Camry Philip. My 2002 Camry V6 is a 4 speed
auto. You are correct that the 2 valve V6 on the Taurus is better compared
to the 4 cyl Camry. But in terms of engine reliability, the Camry is more
reliable.

"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xuBRa.6997$Mc.566825@newsread1.prod.itd.earth link.net...

Bought the wife a new V6 Camry wagon in 1993. Total repairs to date
except for maintenance and wear out items is less than $5 for two
radio knobs. Granted, it is low mileage, but we're still pleased. We
debated getting a Taurus but believe we made the right choice. I know
a lot of my neighbors have Camrys and not one has said they made a
mistake.
BTW, I've driven 4 cylinder Camrys and they really din't feel much
less powerful than the V6.

"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> writes:

What?

2003 Camry is a four speed auto with t/q lockup. There is supposedly a
genuine 5 ratio automatic plus t/q lockup for 2004 models.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)


"XXXXX" <NOSPAM@ISP.COM> wrote in message
news:F6ERa.1522$5e7.105282@news20.bellglobal.com

"Chris Aseltine" <aseltine@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:QfJRa.2805$o7.36408@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu
Sorry... I HAVE a new 2003 in my driveway right now this evening with the
V6. Drove it. It's a four speed with lockup. What you read on Toyota's
website is not correct and... they know it. The wording is deceiving.
The wording is for a 5 speed manual.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Just got a 2003 Camry LE with a 4 cylinder to replace a '94 Taurus wagon
with 157,000 miles. The Taurus wasn't too bad in terms of reliability
(water pump problems mainly) but I think I was pretty lucky (and fortunate
to have the "smaller" V6 offered that year; the "larger" V6 had major
problems, especially with the head gasket).

What really swayed my decision was the '98 Sienna that my family owns. It's
basically a Camry engine with a "big" body hooked on. So far the most
prevalent problem has been squeaky doors when opening and closing. It has
over 105,000 miles. It still drives like new.

The 4 cylinder in my LE seems to have roughly the same response
characteristics as the V6 Taurus; but I haven't had the car very long and it
really isn't fair to compare a 2003 to a 1994.

One item of note (and I'm not sure about this) is that the 4 cylinder Camry
engine is considerred a Ultra Low Emissions engine..

"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EgoRa.105284$Io.9001167@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net...

"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:

When you have an engine capable of producing "work" (horsepower) at
RPM higher than its maximum torque point, you get torque by working
the gearbox aggressively to muliply modest crankshaft torque.
in
that range (between max torque and a wee bit below max horsepower)
whenever the most pulling power is needed for an indefinite period of
time.

Any concerns doing this when the prior owner (an older lady) probably
never ran the engine over 3,000 RPM for the first 85,000 miles?
You recently mentioned checking valve clearances with the bearing /
journal under pressure to get a more accurate setting.
Is there any legitimate concern that the top compression ring could be
touching the wear ridge at the top of the cylinder at higher RPMs?
On my tach, 4,000 is right at the 12:00 o'clock position, so it makes
it easy to run the engine up to 4,000 or a bit more, and "using the
gearbox" (automatic) by pressing the gas pedal further, definitely
yields better acceleration on my 1994 4 cylinder.
Just wondering if there could be anything harmful in the vibration
that seems to increase approaching 5,000 RPM.
I realize this is prbably an ignorant question, but hoping for an
intelligent repsonse.

"Daniel M. Dreifus" <nospampls2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5ef7dc0.0307180620.15f45145@posting.google.c om
None that I can think of. Why? Are you expecting the engine to pop up
an Evil Eye out of the ash tray and blink at you in astonishment?

And?

What ring ridge? You just got thru telling me the car was "granny'd" for
85k miles (hopefully with clean oil).

As a general, broad brush reply, once you pass 1600cc's in a four
cylinder engine, vibrations at the higher RPM's increase to the levels
of needing external spinning counter balancers. Even a V6 or two
has resorted to this kind of "patch" for rocking vibration. It is also
common practice to choose where the vibration point (found in all
engines) will be by balancing the reciprocating parts to create vibration
at a certain RPM. I suspect you'll find your maximum horsepower is about
the same point you start cringing about the vibration. Old fashioned rev
limiter.
--�

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> writes:
Well then.