Sorry the link didn’t show up. I don’t see how to accomplish some of the functions, such as the Blockquote, the way posters are able to copy from a post, selected parts of that post, and have it appear as a virtual ‘screenshot’ of the original. Also, how some are able to get their response to post right under the post they are responding to, as I’ve been told that is not possible - your answer will go to the bottom of the whole thread, which is consistent with where every reply I write appears. But there must be a way, because I know that some responses to posts of mine are somehow placed directly below my post, even though there have been other responses posted AFTER the post of mine that is being responded to (Sorry, but it’s difficult to describe this). If you can provide help with all this, I would appreciate it.
Oh, regarding what instrument do I carry? If I need to bring a piano, I have one to bring. The other instrument, my voice, is carried along with my body
Anyway, here is the link. Keep in mind that I have found it impossible to get to this page by searching from the Home Page for “Toyota”, as that brings up a list of Toyota topics, but NOT this page. I have to do a Google search in order to get the URL link to this page:
“Spared endlessly” might be construed as an exaggeration, but it is a fact that there were a plethora of sparring posts betwen the two of you. Your statements here are clearly trying to dismiss and maneuver around what you and greendragon engaged in, and your are using it as a way to attack me; which doesn’t help your image, nor does your inaccurate claim that I’m using you to “explain or rationalize your behavior,” which is patently nonsense. Further, greendragon was whom I responded to, not you. Why don’t you count the number of interactions on the posts between the two of you and post the total? I’m not spending my time doing so.
I’ve wasted enough time ressponding to what I can are a group of daily posters who support each other and attack those who disagree with them. I’m frankly tired of it, and I have other things in my life to take care of than what has turned out to be a total waste of my time, and a figure to attack here. So, I’m going to answer when I want to answer and not answer to the same people whose main objective is to discredit anything that I say.
I probably didn’t answer your post that you speak of because it consisted of a 10W-40 viscosity graph, which seems highly flawed to me. The lower the W visocity number, the thinner the oil at colder temperatures. You can argue till the cows come home that it isn’t, but that doesn’t change this basic fact. Even mechanics posting here have stated that; and I knew that from posting here day one
I will say that I may be revising my assertion that a higher W number will prevent startup engine damage, as in further research and discussion with are heavily involved in conducting research on all aspects of synthetics and how they react in an engine, that even if a higher cold viscosity W number leaves more oil film coat on parts to protect them, the rapidity in which cold engine startup using a low W number (0W) very quickly circulates and coats those parts. Whether a slightly more viscous W oil’ that maintains a higher level of protective coat to a cold engine, as opposed to a lower viscosity W will so rapidly circulate that there may be almost instantaneous circulation, and thus protect engine parts - I have not at this point found a controlled study that provides definitive data that can truly answer this question - I will be on the fence as to which protects better. So, I find highly antithetical to basic physics, and the very definition by oil manufacturers, and most of the auto industry, including mechanics of competence, that any multi-weight oil becomes more viscous as it heats up, not the other way around. A 0W-20, 5W-20, 10W-20W - all of them become 20 viscosity upon the engine reaching its full operating temperature.
Mobil’s techs that one can reach in a phone call will waffle their answers, because they are instructed to avoid answering certain questions, out of fear the company could end up being sued for stating certain things. But I’m pretty good at couching my questions in such a generalized manner, that I was able to get them to answer some of my questions enough to tell me what I wanted to know.
In any event, Toyota indeed went to 0W-20 from 5W-20 to meet CAFE regulations on gas mileage. What I find reprehensible is that they insist that you must use 0W-20, "if 0W-20 is not available, you can use “5W-20 regular oil but upon the next oil change, you must return to 0W-20”, while refusing to admit that there is no legitimate reason that 5W-20 will do anything to affect an engine negatively. Toyota’s very concession shows the lie to their insistence that you must use 0W-20 regularly. They have met EPA CASE requirements in the design; if an owner prefers or finds that 5W-20 runs better in their car, that should be the owner’s perogative, and they should not be able to have their warranty voided, or told they cannot use it. I’ve had both weights in my new Camry, and noted little if any difference, though I will admit that with only 5,000+ miles on a new car, this is not much of a comparison test.
I’m not answering every constant stream of posts every time I post here. I have important deadlines and work to accomplish that make constant back and forth postings where I am simply spinning my wheels, as this tight-knit group of posters who give constant Likes to each other’s posts, and in their profiles list their favorite posters show a bunch of you control these boards, which is in conflict with what these boards are supposed to provide - open, respectful dialogue of different ideas, the very concept of which is stymied & stopped by this group of chums.
I see no reason that should be changed or forbidden.
In any case, you can’t prevent us from liking somebody’s comments
As for “favorite posters” . . . I have no idea what you’re talking about. I see top links, most replied to, most liked by and most liked. But no “favorite posters” Are you sure you’re not reading too much into things?
What is this “CASE” you keep referring to?
I’ve heard of CAFE . . . corporate average fuel economy. Is that what you mean?
The only other CASE I’m aware of is the manufacturer of construction equipment
If truck emissions have been tightened, it must be minimal & not effectively enforced, I can vouch for that from still seeing the clouds of pollutant exhaust emitted from these trucks, & smelling it, almost asphyxiating myself and others. You fail to respond to the tremendous pollutation from airplanes. So, I’ll provide you some on airplanes & other commercial transports:
“One air mile produces 53.3 pounds of carbon dioxide. One flight from New York, NY to Los Angeles, CA (about 2,450 miles) generates a little over 65 short tons of carbon dioxide”
"Of the various forms of transport examined by the researchers, shipping is the other one most markedly affected by short-term climate impacts. Here, however, everything is in reverse because the major short-term effect of shipping is sulfate aerosol pollution. While they remain in the air, these aerosol particles bounce sunlight away from the earth and therefore cause cooling rather than warming. The extent of this effect is amazing: if I’m understanding the numbers correctly, over a five-year time frame the world’s ships cause enough cooling to offset the total warming caused by every car, plane and bus combined.
Even over a 20-year time frame, shipping pollution still contributes an overall cooling effect – as do electric trains, due to the aerosol pollution kicked out from coal-fired power stations. This throws up a tricky issue for policy makers and industry. If we clean up some kinds of air pollution for the benefit of environmental and human health, then we stand to significantly accelerate global warming in the near-term."
So, it’s not an easy, cut and dry situation. And, per a UK study, "The principal air-quality pollutant emissions from petrol, diesel, and alternative-fuel engines are carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, un-burnt hydrocarbons and particulate matter. It is emissions of these pollutants that are regulated by the Euro emissions standards. Modern cars, if kept in good condition, produce only quite small quantities of the air quality pollutants, but the emissions from large numbers of cars add to a significant air quality problem.
In other words, modern cars produce a rather low level of total emission pollutants, But there are so many more cars on the road that are older with much higher emitted pollutants, and too many people who don’t give a d*mn if their junkmobile is spewing out clouds of polluted garbage. If police simply pulled over and issued hefty fines to these smoke bombs that are so easily spotted, this could help, but just as cops do nothing in most localities about cars with unbelievably noisy exhausts, they do nothing about what really counts.
I live in Los Angeles, one of the most heavily regulated areas, as far as vehicle emissions go
I perform smogs and opacity inspections at my work. And not just little pickup trucks. Everything from class 1 all the way through class 8. I actually look at the printouts, and the tailpipe emissions are pretty clean. Astoundingly clean in many cases
Rest assured, truck emissions HAVE been tightened. It is NOT minimal
Thanks, Joe, for being one of the few who defends my right to post what I believe. If you read my reply to Waterbuff’s post, #242, I update my thoughts on 0W-20 and other oil information.
Well, I guess that “might be construed” as recognition of having exaggerated – combined with a shift to “plethora” instead of “endlessly”.
And interestingly, I kind of regret having gone on with GD as long as I did, although we were talking about the limits of extrapolating from facts as presented, which is kind of a consolation.
I would hardly label an owner’s manual & odometer as an oil monitor system. As I’ve stated before, and many outside this forum agree, not everyone, including mechanics and oil researchers, agree that 10k oil changes, just because the oil is 0W-20, are too long an interval. If we had oils and filters that did not become over-saturated with the dirt and the by-products of combustion itself, then these oils would effectively be capable of providing near the same protection they did when first put in the car. Oils break down for these very reasons, and as much as you want to insist, you can’t change the facts.
As far as Toyota or anyone’s owner’s manual is concerned, I am smart enough to know that these figures are not based on a scientific reality that Toyota has determined. You are free to think as you want, but so am I.
Your snarky comment, “I know with you I probably shouldn’t do this, but I will make the assumption you also have access to a calendar…” is condescending and was unnecessary. If you could show some civility and respect, as keith has asked members to do, this could be a more pleasant environment to post in.
Like I said a few months ago, my wife’s cousin will attest to having to use trucks for Rural Electric with the Blue Def for emissions. And that’s in South Dakota with a pretty low population per square mile. No one has been immune.
As bad as that looks on the surface, it really isn’t all that bad. One gallon of gas produces 24 lbs of CO2 counting the 5 lbs of CO2 emitted just delivering the gas. Car Emissions & Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists. That would be 19 lbs from the gas alone. If the average car is getting 26 mpg, thats about 3/4 lb per mile. With an average of 2 people per car, that’s 3/8 lb/passenger mile.
Your aircraft at 53.3 lbs of CO2 per mile is usually carrying 150 to 180 passengers so that works out to about .3 to .35 lbs/passenger mile. About the same as a car. Newer jets are getting more efficient with their high bypass fan jet engines.
Edit: I’m going to add to this post instead of making another one. There seems to be a lot of confusion between viscosity and grade. 0w20, 10w30 etc are grades of oil, not viscosity’s. Technically they are the viscosity grades.
Grade or viscosity grade is the temp/viscosity curve on a chart. 0w20 is not 0 viscosity at 0C nor is it 20 viscosity at 100C. A grade 30 oil (10w30, 5w30, 0w30, or 30HD) has a viscosity of around 10 at 100C. Grade 20 oils have a viscosity of around 6 at 100C. Grade 10w will have a viscosity of around 100 @ 75F, grade 0w will have a viscosity of around 40 at 75F.
Although I am not a fan of bobistheoilguy.com, this article is pretty good, as is the one following it.
You did some research. But when I go to your link, here is what I found:
"Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.
In total, the US transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions, more than almost any other sector."
So, they are saying 20% of emissions are from cars + trucks, and trucks, regardless of the supposed improvements, I don’t believe trucks are anywhere near the level of cars. One need only look at what their exhausts are letting out, which is billowing clouds of horrid diesel fumes, just like buses, & they are enough to gag you.
So, they shouldn’t be lumping cars & trucks together to give that 20% figure. Then, they lump together the whole US transport sector - cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships & freight to come up with a 30% US global warming emissions figure, more than almost any other sector. I just find this presentation of figures rather tedious and not providing enough information.
So, all transport comprises 30% of “global warming emissions”, then it would seem to me the other 70% would be even more important to address. To complicate this further, there is conflicting information on various sites about this.
And, I now realize I shouldn’t have quoted what I did quote back to Nevada, because it was from a UK source.
Frankly, I’m sorry I ever got involved in an emissions discussion. There are way too many factors for any real clarity on this issue, and I can’t spend hours of time researching and getting into emissions and global warming. The other source I quoted stated that paraxodically, we have less global warming with the emissions we have then if they were to be eliminated! So, I’m bowing out of this whole pollution discussion.
My parting thought is that there should be some practicality in how much is going to be forced upon auto mfrs. to do in reducing emissions. I think the EPA has gone too far already. They have made the car mfrs. create a nightmare of controls, parts, design demands, etc. that ultimately become an extreme expense for the consumer, the car owner, to have to spend a fortune on what I consider an excessive amount of expensive and complex systems. It’s gotten to the point where the majority of middle income Americans will be spending way too much of their income on buying and paying huge repair bills on these complex systems when they fail. As usual, when the govt. gets involved and controls everything, they create a mess. The less government, the better. The people are the ones that should be controlling the government, but it is totally the opposite way where there are chains and shackles around the citizens, and few people care to do anything about it, but simply placidly accept it.
My owner manual, odometer, calendar, and checking the dipstick weekly although it is always on the full dot is my only oil monitoring system. I have oil and filter changed every 5,000 miles/6 months at the dealership.
Keith,
I didn’t mean to infer that you were trying to start another discussion, so sorry if you took it that way. As I was responding to you, I realized that my response was leading me into too much depth on this complex subject; that’s all.
You were trying to be helpful with your link, and I have nothing negative to say about that.
Missed that and cannot find it, maybe I am deprecated
Thanks for the link, .I did look at the top 10 cars, and I think 4 of them were Toyotas,
Barky,
The link I gave you takes you directly to a Toyota Camry ratings and comments area, not where the link you provided goes. You certainly had to have seen on my link the Toyota Ratings with the low orange star rating. But you didn’t comment on any of those endless problems reported by owners of Camrys.
As I suggested to you, when you click on the link I provided, SCROLL DOWN, and you’ll see a blue area with some facts about how their computer goes through all the reviews, and is programmed to flag to them ones that seem questionable, and doesn’t post them. If you click on FAQ’s, right at the bottom of the blue area, you’ll get an in-depth explanation of how they operate the site.
My link presently is not working for me; neither can I reach their site at all, so they must be having system problems.
Why did you take a part of a quote from another response to someone else and place it in your answer? Let’s not inflame things more by doing that, which has nothing to do with my conversations with you. Arf, arf…
WORKING NOW: Cut & paste (only shows as plain test though)
Last updated: Nov. 6, 2017
244 Toyota Camry Consumer Reviews and Complaints
Sort:
Recent
Filter by:Any
Renee of Darby, PA Verified Reviewer
Original review: Nov. 6, 2017
The oil consumption issue has costs me $100s in the 8 years I have had my 2007 Camry. Constantly adding oil and when I went to Toyota they said the parts to repair the piston issue were on back order indefinitely, say what!!???
HELPFUL Be the first one to find this review helpful
And the “Energizer Bunny” keeps going and going and going… More than 250 posts for a question with only one logical answer. ‘Follow the manufacturer’s scheduled maintenance and fluid requirements’.
