(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Seanross/camry07.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Seanross/camry071.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Seanross/camry072.jpg)
I looked before I posted this time. :P
I see the following:
Mazda 3 in the front
Hints of STS in the side
Avalon
The rear lights remind of the new Civic
Plus some other stuff I can't quite figure out.
The headlights look very Lexusish imho with a little Acura edginess thrown in. The rear lights have a hint of Zephyer in them.
The front looks smoother than the current one, other than the way they did the Toyota logo. What the heck is up with that? Headlights definitely look similar to the L-Finesse stylings of Lexus, the rear lights seem to come from the newer Toyota look, not quite like the Avalon, but of similar principle. It looks okay overall, but something about how the C pillar meets the trunk looks misproportioned or something. Like the trunk is too short, or there are some funky styling lines going on there or something. I'll be interested to see press release photos, whenever they announce it.
I think it looks pretty good. I'd hit it.
QuoteI think it looks pretty good. I'd hit it.
I think it looks better than the current one, it's a little more sleek, and will be more easily called sporty in the styling, now all they have to do is match it with a good suspension and worthy interior. :) Though I still think the Toyota badge on the front and the rear in general look odd.
I don't really like the central grille plunge on this car nor the new IS, which it appears to draw from.
The Camry sucks :)
The individual pieces look good, but it doesn't seem to flow well in the full-view picture. I'll reserve judgement until I see better pics, but it doesn't look phenomenal so far. And the grille is definitely a near clone of the Mazda3's.
QuoteThe individual pieces look good, but it doesn't seem to flow well in the full-view picture. I'll reserve judgement until I see better pics, but it doesn't look phenomenal so far. And the grille is definitely a near clone of the Mazda3's.
Yaris, guys. Yaris.
While I see some Yaris in the nose, it really does look quite a lot like the nose of a Mazda3. At least from that angle.
QuoteQuoteThe individual pieces look good, but it doesn't seem to flow well in the full-view picture. I'll reserve judgement until I see better pics, but it doesn't look phenomenal so far. And the grille is definitely a near clone of the Mazda3's.
Yaris, guys. Yaris.
Nope, it's definitely more Mazda than Toyota. Mazda got that grille design in MY 04, no Toyota had that before then.
BLAND.
I actually like the Fusion much better. :o
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe individual pieces look good, but it doesn't seem to flow well in the full-view picture. I'll reserve judgement until I see better pics, but it doesn't look phenomenal so far. And the grille is definitely a near clone of the Mazda3's.
Yaris, guys. Yaris.
Nope, it's definitely more Mazda than Toyota. Mazda got that grille design in MY 04, no Toyota had that before then.
2002 Yaris- (http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundomotor/especiales/2002/10/coches/utilitarios/imagenes/toyota_yaris_g.jpg)
2004 Mazda 3 (http://www.essai-auto.com/Images/2004_mazda_3_grand_2.jpg)
The Yaris has a more similar overall placement... the emblem is part of the metal rather than the grille, unlike the 3. And the Yaris had it first. Gosh ifcar, I thought you did better research than that. :D :P The 3 and Camry both have solid horizontal bars, true, but the Camry has had horizontal bars for a long time. (my 2000 has them)
Where the emblem is put is nothing against the grille's shape. That Camry grille is shaped nothing like the Yaris's.
I'd have to agree with ifcar on this one.
Mazda3 front end.
Not too bad, though I'll wait to make a final judgment when someone who is not having a seizure decides to take pictures.
QuoteI'd have to agree with ifcar on this one.
Mazda3 front end.
The headlights look more like a cross between the GS and the current Camry IMO, but the grille is definitely very similar to the 3's.
QuoteI actually like the Fusion much better. :o
Was that a pig I just saw flying? :D
I guess I am the only one who see the new Sonata in this car. The headlights and taillights both remind me of the Sonata. A lot of the general shape does as well.
I see the taillights as a cross between the Odyssey and the 06 IS. No Hyundai.
I think it looks fine, but I've never seen anything wrong with the current Camry in the first place. Personally, I've always thought it looked quite nice, way better than the Malibu atleast.
I always considered it a reasonably attractive car as well, though I never minded the Malibu either (the 06 front is atrocious though IMO).
QuoteI always considered it a reasonably attractive car as well, though I never minded the Malibu either (the 06 front is atrocious though IMO).
You mean you prefer this:
(http://www.davo.com/_248-588-9600_/images/chevy/Chevy_Malibu_Sedan_Front.jpg)
to this?:
(http://www.tuningnews.net/news/050328a/chevrolet-malibu-ss-06.jpg)
Yes, I know the bottom one is the SS version, but I'm talking about even without the SS trim. I really think the newer version looks very nice. I saw one in the parking lot the other day and it actually was eye-catching. By Malibu standards that is.
I prefer the new version, but neither model is particularly pretty imho. From the a-pillar back it looks pretty nice, but the front clip is horrible.
QuoteQuoteI always considered it a reasonably attractive car as well, though I never minded the Malibu either (the 06 front is atrocious though IMO).
You mean you prefer this:
(http://www.davo.com/_248-588-9600_/images/chevy/Chevy_Malibu_Sedan_Front.jpg)
to this?:
(http://www.tuningnews.net/news/050328a/chevrolet-malibu-ss-06.jpg)
Yes, I know the bottom one is the SS version, but I'm talking about even without the SS trim. I really think the newer version looks very nice. I saw one in the parking lot the other day and it actually was eye-catching. By Malibu standards that is.
I easily prefer the original version. The new one has a massive bumper, and the headlights don't flow at all with the grille.
I didn't mean to sound like I truly disliked the malibu. I'm indifferent to the front for either model year, to me the tailend of the malibu sedan just looks kind of goofy.
I actually quite like the Malibu Maxx, because it has a nicer butt. :)
QuoteQuoteQuoteI always considered it a reasonably attractive car as well, though I never minded the Malibu either (the 06 front is atrocious though IMO).
You mean you prefer this:
(http://www.davo.com/_248-588-9600_/images/chevy/Chevy_Malibu_Sedan_Front.jpg)
to this?:
(http://www.tuningnews.net/news/050328a/chevrolet-malibu-ss-06.jpg)
Yes, I know the bottom one is the SS version, but I'm talking about even without the SS trim. I really think the newer version looks very nice. I saw one in the parking lot the other day and it actually was eye-catching. By Malibu standards that is.
I easily prefer the original version. The new one has a massive bumper, and the headlights don't flow at all with the grille.
I'm with if on this--the headlights on the new one look way, way too high.
QuoteQuote
I easily prefer the original version. The new one has a massive bumper, and the headlights don't flow at all with the grille.
I'm with if on this--the headlights on the new one look way, way too high.
I'm with IF, and Raza.
Removing the bar without moving the headlights makes it look bugeyed.
QuoteI guess I am the only one who see the new Sonata in this car. The headlights and taillights both remind me of the Sonata. A lot of the general shape does as well.
The headlights look nothing like the Sonatas, and the taillights look like the spyshots for the next LS, not really seeing any Sonata there either.
The rear end looks pretty much likea sonata, the front looks like an IS.
I just realized what the rear-end reminds me of:
(http://www.fmvperformance.com/downloads/Ford_Lincoln_Mercury/lincoln_zephyr_back.JPG)
You're just now realizing that?
" The headlights look very Lexusish imho with a little Acura edginess thrown in. The rear lights have a hint of Zephyer in them."
QuoteYou're just now realizing that?
" The headlights look very Lexusish imho with a little Acura edginess thrown in. The rear lights have a hint of Zephyer in them."
Oops sorry, I missed that. Well, then I agree you! :lol:
QuoteI just realized what the rear-end reminds me of:
(http://www.fmvperformance.com/downloads/Ford_Lincoln_Mercury/lincoln_zephyr_back.JPG)
Those Zephyr taillights look oddly similar to the 9-3's.
(http://www.apollo-pr.co.jp/variety/buy/mycar/2006/01/top1.jpg)
Quote(http://www.apollo-pr.co.jp/variety/buy/mycar/2006/01/top1.jpg)
I like that grille better. What's in the very bottom left?
In that pic the headlights remind me of the Azera:
(http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/2005_newyork/azera/images/1.jpg)
Also, the slab sides look no better on the Camry than they do on the Avalon, that styling technique left with the '90s.
Not really, it's still a popular look among many vehicles. And this Camry isn't completely slabsided either.
Maybe it is just the tall beltline that makes it look that way at first glance.
You can see better in the larger pic:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Seanross/camry072.jpg)
Still looks pretty tall to me.
Tall doesn't mean slabsided. <_<
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar01/01_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar01/02_b.jpg)
:mellow:
Eh. It's not pretty, but it could be worse. It should blend in just fine, and the interior should be a vast improvement.
More pics:
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar01/03_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar01/04_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar01/05_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar02/01_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar02/02_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar02/03_b.jpg)
(http://www.auto-g.jp/image.html?image=news/200511/23/newcar02/09_b.jpg)
It's a nice Camry but nothing exciting as usual.
Man, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
QuoteMan, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
Are you rooting for this one Mark? I know how much you like the Accord...
Damn! They need to give their competitors a break! It must be tough keeping up with that.
The front and back are okay, I suppose. The side profile I don't care for. Because of the way the headlights are, it makes the bumper look huge from the side, and the overall shape looks extremely similar to the current one (like door and window shape, for example). I was hoping they'd do something a little more... different.
I think it looks better than the current model. This one looks leaner than the rather bloated looking car they sell now. Beltline is still too high and the wheels still look a little small for the car.
Some more photos:
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/il/news/2005/1123/toyotacamry1.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/il/news/2005/1123/toyotacamry2.500.jpg)
Catman already posted those.
QuoteTall doesn't mean slabsided. <_<
I was referring to the beltline, it is rather high resulting in tall sides.
Tall sides don't necessarily mean slabsided either.
Which is why I made that comment.
You've lost me.
Didn't you just describe it as slabsided because of tall sides?
QuoteQuoteMan, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
Are you rooting for this one Mark? I know how much you like the Accord...
I'd be ecstatic if Honda and Toyota were erased from existence.
QuoteQuoteQuoteMan, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
Are you rooting for this one Mark? I know how much you like the Accord...
I'd be ecstatic if Honda and Toyota were erased from existence.
Even I wouldn't go that far. They've built some good cars. Supra, MR-2, MR-S, S2000, NSX.
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/cmsimages/Sneak_Peeks/Dec.%2005/07_Camry2_400.jpg)
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/cmsimages/Sneak_Peeks/Dec.%2005/07_Camry__400.jpg)
America's best-selling car is redesigned for 2007, getting new styling, more power and features, and, for the first time, a gas/electric hybrid model. Camry retains the same overall length as the 2002-2006 version, but adds 2.2 inches to wheelbase and cuts height by nearly an inch. Base-model curb weight is up some 175 lb. New features include standard instead of optional curtain side airbags. The line consists of a price-leader CE trim level, volume LE, sporty SE, and luxury XLE. All come with a 158-hp 2.4-liter 4-cyl engine and a 5-speed manual transmission or a 5-speed automtic. LE, SE, and XLE also offer V6 versions with a 268-hp 3.5-liter and a 6-speed automatic transmission. Camry's previous most-powerful V6 had 210 hp and used a 5-speed automatic.
Both '07 automatics include a manual shift gate. The Hybrid teams a special 2.4-liter 4-cyl gas engine with a battery-powered electric motor for 192 net hp. It teams with a continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT) providing near-infinite drive ratios. Like Toyota's smaller Prius hybrid, Camry's automatically drives on either or both power sources, depending on conditions, and requires no plug-in charging. Antilock 4-wheel disc brakes are standard for all models. So are front torso side airbags, head-protecting curtain side airbags, and, for the first time, a driver's knee airbag.
The Hybrid adds antiskid/traction control that's available for other models. SEs come with 17-inch wheels, the other models with 16s. SEs also have a firmer suspension, and specific trim inside and out. The Hybrid also has unique interior and exterior trim. A split folding rear seat is standard except on SE and Hybrid, which have a fixed seat with center pass-through. Leather upholstery is included on the V6 XLE, available for the 4-cyl XLE and the SE. A navigation system with CD changer and wireless cell-phone link is optional for SE and XLE, as are heated seats. A new-to-Camry keyless-entry/starting system is included on Hybrid and available for V6 XLE.
I actually really like that. Looks like a stretched, dare I say more agressive, Mazda6. Yet still classy. In black, this would be murderous. :o
If they lowered the headlights and grille, moved the Toyota logo on the grille to a more sensible location (the center seems to work well for most cars), and lost the rheumatic taillights, it would be a very attractive car IMO.
Maybe in the mid-cycle facelift.
I don't like how they did the bumper vent in the middle; it makes the whole front end look kind of restricted.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMan, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
Are you rooting for this one Mark? I know how much you like the Accord...
I'd be ecstatic if Honda and Toyota were erased from existence.
Even I wouldn't go that far. They've built some good cars. Supra, MR-2, MR-S, S2000, NSX.
Don't forget the Land Cruiser and Hilux for truck people.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMan, what a turd. Most ungainly Camry yet.
Are you rooting for this one Mark? I know how much you like the Accord...
I'd be ecstatic if Honda and Toyota were erased from existence.
Even I wouldn't go that far. They've built some good cars. Supra, MR-2, MR-S, S2000, NSX.
Don't forget the Land Cruiser and Hilux for truck people.
Damn right, Chimp. Indeed some of the best trucks ever made by the leading company in global sales.
Hate the grille, hate the flanks, it's too high, and that's one of the worst colors I've ever seen.
The front is a mix of Acura and Mazda, which didn't turn out too bad.
My biggest beef though, is the obvious hood line above the grill. Why couldn't they bring it down to the top of the grill like everyone else?
The back looks OK in that shot. I'd like to see better shots of the tail lights.
The sides need something to make them less slab-like. And that color is awful.
I agree about the color making it look... well, bad. I'm not liking the tailights, and the front bumper just looks too big. Also, as I said before, I hate the high mounted emblem.
More new pics here:
http://target.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/toyot...c66.jpg&.src=ph (http://target.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/toyotommy/detail?.dir=42a3&.dnm=fc66.jpg&.src=ph)
The front doesn't look as good in those shots. There's too much dark color sheetmetal around the clear lights I think, and it throws the whole front end out of balance.
Interior doesn't look bad at all, but is it too hard to show the whole dash in one shot, and not five pictures of the different parts? <_<
Finally, what was the car doing sitting in a garage unlocked? :blink:
Is it just me or does the interior look really cheap in those pictures? There are seas of fake metal that isn't convincing at all. Even the regular plastic doesn't look real HQ to me. I think the current interior looks better (already in the bottom of the class imho).
I'm not sold on the design, the current Solara's is much nicer looking IMO. But you can't judge materials from a picture.
The interior doesn't look like it's made cheaply to me, it just looks like crap stylistically. The exterior looks semi-sporty, but I still don't like the way they did the grille/logo. At any rate, I'm thinking (and hoping) that the fake metal (which I don't mind in some cars, but dont care for in these pictures) won't be in the other trims of the car.
QuoteIs it just me or does the interior look really cheap in those pictures? There are seas of fake metal that isn't convincing at all. Even the regular plastic doesn't look real HQ to me. I think the current interior looks better (already in the bottom of the class imho).
It does look a little brittle in the pics. The Fusion looks nicer IMO (the whole car).
QuoteQuoteIs it just me or does the interior look really cheap in those pictures? There are seas of fake metal that isn't convincing at all. Even the regular plastic doesn't look real HQ to me. I think the current interior looks better (already in the bottom of the class imho).
It does look a little brittle in the pics. The Fusion looks nicer IMO (the whole car).
How can something look brittle in pictures? :blink:
Cheapness:
(http://tinypic.com/idrkll.jpg)
More cheapness:
(http://tinypic.com/idrkoj.jpg)
Even more cheapness:
(http://tinypic.com/idrkib.jpg)
That is about the worst fake metal trim I have ever seen and it is used way to liberally. Even the other stuff on the center console looks very hard and their are some sharp edges on the other stuff. I hate to be one of those people, BUT I think it is safe to say that the Accord's interior design and quality is still the best in this segment.
Wow, I didn't realize just how big those pics were, sorry about that.
QuoteQuoteQuoteIs it just me or does the interior look really cheap in those pictures? There are seas of fake metal that isn't convincing at all. Even the regular plastic doesn't look real HQ to me. I think the current interior looks better (already in the bottom of the class imho).
It does look a little brittle in the pics. The Fusion looks nicer IMO (the whole car).
How can something look brittle in pictures? :blink:
I don't know but that fake metal trim that Tim was talking about just looks cheap.
I will admit that the steering wheel looks very nice.
I can't believe this but the Ford looks much nicer to me.
(http://www.americancarfans.com/news/2050628.002/2050628.002.Mini11L.jpg)
I agree. But, keep in mind that the Fusion pic was professionally done with studio lighting.
The benchmark (imho):
(http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/ag/honda_accordsedan_dx5spdat_2005_interior_19_346x270.jpg)
The Fusion interior doesn't look as nice in person. In that photo, the darkness can obscure the contrast on the center stack between the glossy wood trim and the cheap plastic on the stereo.
Ugly. And why is it parked next to a 911 turbo and a GT3 Cup Car?
Well, better pictures, in a better color. But with better pictures comes a keener eye, and flaws that are more blaring.
For one, the front looks like aggressive done wrong. It's like they tried to create a mathematical formula for aggression and this is what they came up with. It's very Lexus in execution--like a cross between the amorphous IS and the blobular GS.
The flanks are even more unimpressive, and the design suffers from the same problem that the new Civic does. There's a natural line for the hood on the front quarter panel, but the hood meets the windscreen on a bulge, a foreign element to the front end.
And the interior--the sea of metal-painted plastics doesn't seem to be a very tactile sensation at all. The last Camry's interior was terrible, and this one probably won't become a class leader either. The "metal" is more aesthetically pleasing, and from the pictures, it seems to have eluded the expanses of featureless plastic that plagues the current GS.
I'd hate to have the sun reflecting off those silver guages. And what is with that gearshift? Reverse and neutral aren't marked? I understand creativity, but this is unnecessary.
The door sills are attractive though.
"And what is with that gearshift? Reverse and neutral aren't marked? I understand creativity, but this is unnecessary."
That actual brings up something I have been wondering about. How do you tell what gear you are in with the new GM console shifters?
Quote"And what is with that gearshift? Reverse and neutral aren't marked? I understand creativity, but this is unnecessary."
That actual brings up something I have been wondering about. How do you tell what gear you are in with the new GM console shifters?
I'd personally go with the little numbers that tell you which gear you're in.
Seriously, what issue are you referring to?
QuoteCheapness:
More cheapness:
Even more cheapness:
That is about the worst fake metal trim I have ever seen and it is used way to liberally. Even the other stuff on the center console looks very hard and their are some sharp edges on the other stuff. I hate to be one of those people, BUT I think it is safe to say that the Accord's interior design and quality is still the best in this segment.
I'll agree. When blown up, things don't look all that well put together for a Toyota, and the plastics do look unexceptional. I'm hoping this is pre-production stuff, because I can't imagine them releasing a Camry, one of their backbone models, without it being better than the generation it is replacing in nearly every way, including the interior.
Quote
I'd hate to have the sun reflecting off those silver guages. And what is with that gearshift? Reverse and neutral aren't marked? I understand creativity, but this is unnecessary.
Reverse is the red R and Neutral is the green N. If you can't figure out which position the shifter is supposed to be in, considering you're bound to be able to feel it and think that the position lined up with the letter is the gear you're in, they probably figure you shouldn't be driving. <_<
QuoteQuote"And what is with that gearshift? Reverse and neutral aren't marked? I understand creativity, but this is unnecessary."
That actual brings up something I have been wondering about. How do you tell what gear you are in with the new GM console shifters?
I'd personally go with the little numbers that tell you which gear you're in.
Seriously, what issue are you referring to?
At least in pictures it doesn't look like there are any indicators beside the shifter.
In which car?
The Impala for sure.
(http://www.americancarfans.com/photos/3050107.001/1032.jpg)
Gauge cluster, under the speedometer.
(http://www.americancarfans.com/photos/3050107.001/1030.jpg)
Mark:
Of course, but most manufacturers have the gear order beside the shifter. I really would think that would make things easier, especially when you just start using the car.
That's odd, I had never even noticed. But I guess if you're used to the gear order, you don't need the markings, which must be what Chevrolet is counting on.
True, but I still think it would be more convenient to have the markings there (especially since a lot of people are switching for column shift equipped suvs) and it isn't like they are particularly ugly if done right.
On one hand I don't like it because I'm used to a pattern next to the shifter, like you. On the other hand it makes loads of sense, since it's retarded to have to look at the shifter to know what position you're in.
In my mind, that's the whole idea behind a gated shifter. You have to move the shifter to one specific spot in order to be in the desired position. At the same time I've never liked to gated shifter because I always seem to find myself not knowing which way to move the stick. It's not intuitive. Take the Camry as an example. To go from Park to Drive, you move it right, then down, then left, then down, then left, then down. To go from park to drive in the Impala you move it down, that's it.
In the end I think the indicator in the instrument cluster is a good compromise. I tend to look at my gauges when I start a car anyway. After a while you don't even need an indicator. I can shift my Dodge into Overdrive by feel.
"True, but I still think it would be more convenient to have the markings there (especially since a lot of people are switching for column shift equipped suvs) and it isn't like they are particularly ugly if done right. "
I agree. Perhaps they were concerned with making the console symmetrical.
QuoteOn one hand I don't like it because I'm used to a pattern next to the shifter, like you. On the other hand it makes loads of sense, since it's retarded to have to look at the shifter to know what position you're in.
In my mind, that's the whole idea behind a gated shifter. You have to move the shifter to one specific spot in order to be in the desired position. At the same time I've never liked to gated shifter because I always seem to find myself not knowing which way to move the stick. It's not intuitive. Take the Camry as an example. To go from Park to Drive, you move it right, then down, then left, then down, then left, then down. To go from park to drive in the Impala you move it down, that's it.
In the end I think the indicator in the instrument cluster is a good compromise. I tend to look at my gauges when I start a car anyway. After a while you don't even need an indicator. I can shift my Dodge into Overdrive by feel.
To be completely honest I've never used an AT console shifter, but it would make sense to me that when you first start using the car you would look down at the shifter when you shift. What they should have done (imho) is have lite up indicators beside the shifter so that when the car is off you can't even see them. Either way, it is just a small detail.
You've never used a console-shifted automatic?
Frankly, considering that, I would have thought an indicator within the instruments would make absolute sense, as that would be the only thing you've ever seen.
I've only driven 4 vehicles (street legal that is, I don't think the tractor and 4wheeler count ;)) so that shouldn't be too surprising ;) (two were trucks with column shifters and the other two were cars with stick shifts).
QuoteYou've never used a console-shifted automatic?
Frankly, considering that, I would have thought an indicator within the instruments would make absolute sense, as that would be the only thing you've ever seen.
Yeah, it really isn't an issue if the info is in the gauge cluster. In fact, it makes more sense to have it there.
QuoteI've only driven 4 vehicles (street legal that is, I don't think the tractor and 4wheeler count ;) ) so that shouldn't be too surprising ;) (two were trucks with column shifters and the other two were cars with stick shifts).
I would have thought it would be intuitive for you to have an indicator as part of the instruments, as is the case with console-shifted automatics.