rosskoss

Raging battle on another forum. Need the answer if anyone owns a 4 cylinder Camry. If there's a link to a chart or spec. sheet, that'd be even better.

flipside909

The question is a little vague. What year and which 4 cyl Camry? You pretty much asked a general question for all 6 generations of Camrys. Gearing between auto and manual are obviously different so the gear ratio and final drive ratio will vary.

Auto, Manual
1984-2007
2S-E, 2S-FE, 3S-FE, 5S-FE, 2AZ-FE, etc.

Generally Camry 4cyl of the past with auto trannys run in the 2k rpm range. I don't think there is any such spec sheet out there to be honest unless you can find the numbers in factory service manual.

Nextourer

Umm... I don't recall actually lol. I haven't taken my dad's Camry up to 60mph since summer. I realise my answer is vague but it's definitely between 2,000rpm and 2,800rpm. Not any higher nor lower.

mmarshall

No one set figure. The engine RPM at 60 MPH will depend on a number of things, including whether it is a manual or automatic transmission, what gear you are in ( usually 4th or 5th ), whether or not the torque-converter lockup is engaged, whether the engine is under a load going uphill or coasting downhill, whether the A/C compressor is on, and other factors.

Most 5-speed automatic-transmission regular family sedans, including Camrys, in 5th gear overdrive and lockup engaged, on a level surface, at standard temperature ( 59 degrees ), with the engine under average cruising load conditions, will do around 2500 RPM or so.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

I have a 1997 and 2007 4cylinder. The 1997 is around 2000-2100 RPMS at 60, and the 2007 is at about 1700 or so.

mmarshall

Does the 2007 have a 6-speed? That could account for the low RPM at highway speeds.
You also have to be careful, under those circumstances, that you don't lug the engine. 1700 RPM, for a four, in a higher gear, could put a strain on it going uphill and really shorten its life. The transmission is supposed to downshift automatically at a given manifold pressure and engine load, but in the interest of emissions and gas mileage, and with so-called " logic " electronics, engineers don't really let some automatics downshift when they should. That is why I got into the habit, years ago, of controlling the automatic transmission myself and locking out overdrive in hilly terrain....and many new automatics have the automanual feature standard now.

Lil4X

For most of the '70's and '80's, cars with manual transmissions and a direct (1:1 ratio transmission in top gear) and a rear end somewhere between 3.14 and 3.50:1 gave about 2 mph per 100 rpm. 60 mph meant about 3K R's. This remained true for most smaller "economy" cars with 4 and 6 cyl engines across the board.

Few "overdrives" were available. A college friend's Austin-Healey had a inch and a half toggle growing out of the dashboard just where your right forefinger could flick the electric overdrive on and off, effectively giving a fifth gear for cruising. For club racers, the electric solenoid was usually replaced by a second shifter on the transmission tunnel, providing far greater reliability, but a real exercise in driver dexterity when shifting down.

One of my old roommates had a Studebaker Lark with overdrive that would decouple and freewheel when coasting, pretty dramatically increasing stopping distance while scaring the tar out of the unwary driver. Without engine braking, the car actually seemed to accelerate when you lifted your right foot. If you managed to do this on a downhill section, it seemed the car could achieve warp speed before you could get to the brake. It required . . . concentration to drive.

For the past 10-15 years the trend toward engines with greater fuel efficiency and more torque at lower revs has produced 5 and 6-speed transmissions where the top two gears are often overdrives, drastically reducing crank and piston speed when cruising. As mmarshall points out, this can lead to lugging the engine, particularly on a manual where the driver is expected to offer input into the choice of gear.

As an OG, it still amazes me when cruising my RX at highway speeds to see the tach hovering just above the 2K notch. All in the name of efficiency . . .

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

The 1997 is a 4AT, the 2007 is a 5AT. I don't really understand what you mean by lugging...obviously the revs are going to be different if you're going uphill or downhill, but in regular driving on the highway or whatever, the revs for the new car are just below 2000 and just above 2000 on the '97.

GStateOM

I have a '95 4 cyl. I'd say around 2500 RPM.

mmarshall

NOTHING on Healeys.......or any other British sports cars of the period..... had any true reliability, Lil. You grew up in my generation, and undoubedly know that.

mmarshall

OK....let me define lugging as it relates to engine RPM.

Lugging occurs when the engine is in too high ( or too tall ) a gear and the crankshaft is not turning enough RPM's, in relation to the speed of the wheel rotation and drive shaft, to pull the car smoothly....or in other words, the engine does not have the leverage for the available amount of torque at that RPM to easily keep the car moving without straining. It usually occurs at relatively low engine RPM's and in the lower parts of the torque band.....it is based more on torque and not HP.

Think of it this way: suppose YOU are like a car engine. YOU have to turn a crank, connected to a gear or pulley system, with YOUR arm muscles to lift a big, heavy block of cement tied to that pulley. If the crank you are turning is attached to a small gear, which in turn drives a much larger gear that lifts the heavy cement block, then you will be able to easily lift the cement block without straining......but you will have to turn the crank more times and the block will rise very slowly. It is a matter of simple multipliation of leverage. This is like first gear in an automobile.

Now, if you are turning a crank that is attached to a much larger gear, and that gear is attached to a smaller one that lifts the cement block, you will not have to turn the crank anywhere near as much or as fast to lift the block, and the block will rise more rapidly, but because you will have lost so much leverage through the gearing system, you will strain the hell out of your arm muscles, and perhaps even break an arm bone. ( Car engines sometimes crack or break crankshafts when overstressed ). This is compared to high gear in a car in an overloaded condition. So, obviously, in high gear, a car's engine has to be able to make enough torque to move the required load in the gear range so that the engine is not strained enough through the loss of leverage that it is damaged or its useful life is shortened.

Sometimes ( more so with manuals than automatics ) you can detect signs of lugging from more-than-usual engine vibration, chugging noises, or a rough-sounding hum.

GFerg

In my Dads old 07 Camry, in top gear (5th) cruising on the highway I've noticed it right at 1800-1900rpm. Though of course like many others have already stated, there are other variables to consider.

Lil4X

Lugging down those old engines was pretty easy to do - especially when most of us raised on this side of the pond were used to large-displacement, slow-turning engines that produced all kinds of torque. We learned the hard way after destroying a couple of those Euro-motors.

The earliest VW Microbuses actually came with instructions to drive them hard. Considering those 40 horsepower were hard pressed to poke that oversized loaf of bread through the air at anything over 55 mph, driving hard was practically a given. A friend and I worked part time hauling TV sets for a local shop, driving one of these little vans in 1959. With the 4-speed, you had a lot of rowing to do just to keep the thing moving in traffic.

We found it had a rudimentary cruise control. Flat out in third gear was exactly 35 mph. Yes, it sounded like it would fly apart, but "our" van got far better mileage and had practically no mechanical problems compared to its twin driven by one of the techs. Accustomed to a domestic pickup, he lugged the little engine badly, costing the owner at least a couple of new engines. Those Krauts were doing something very right.

On the other hand, the Brits had to suffer with what were arguably the worst automotive electrics on the planet. It seemed no matter what you drove, from a Sunbeam to a Jaguar, all of the major electrical components were stamped "Lucas". Late at night, cutting into a long, fast sweeper on a rain-slick blacktop, the entire lighting system would suddenly extinguish itself for no apparent reason - leaving the driver with one of those moments when one's **** sphincter takes a prodigious bite out of the Connolly hide. Lucas was not for nothing known as "The Prince of Darkness".

An old friend in Aberdeen who drove for the Triumph organization for a number of years once told me the reason the UK was not a factor in the computer industry was that they were still trying to find a way to make a computer leak oil on the driveway. Given the propensity for Lucas parts to fail spectacularly and with great regularity, it's a blessing they never teamed up with Microsoft.