2025 Camry goes Hybrid only

[rmc523]

 

 

So it's basically a thorough refresh they're calling "all new" - with the middle body and doors unchanged.

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

So it's basically a thorough refresh they're calling "all new" - with the middle body and doors unchanged.

No different than what Ford did with the new Mustang….

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

So it's basically a thorough refresh they're calling "all new" - with the middle body and doors unchanged.

 

It’s just as new as every other Camry the last 30 years.  Which isn’t a bad thing.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  You listening Ford?

[rmc523]

29 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

No different than what Ford did with the new Mustang….

 

Right, but Ford at least changed the sheetmetal on every panel (except maybe the roof).  This redesign kept the same sheetmetal - including door skins - between the pillars.

 

23 minutes ago, akirby said:

It’s just as new as every other Camry the last 30 years.  Which isn’t a bad thing.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  You listening Ford?

 

I don't have a problem with that overall approach, and advocate them doing that with ICE products going forward so that those products don't whither on the vine - but change all the sheet metal when doing it - see above.

[rperez817]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

It’s just as new as every other Camry the last 30 years.  

 

In the past 30 years, the American Toyota Camry used an all-new platform three times. XV10 (MY 1992), XV30 (MY 2002, K Platform) and XV70 (MY 2018, TNGA GA-K platform). These represent the most extensive redesigns in the Camry's history.

 

XV20 (MY 1997) represented a major redesign with all new styling inside and out, though using the same platform as XV10. Similarly, both the XV40 (MY 2007) and XV50 (MY 2012) Camry generations followed that approach (continuation of K platform) but added new engines and transmissions as well. XV50 also received a relatively substantial refresh for MY 2015, though no new powertrains were introduced.

 

2025 model year Camry is most similar to XV40 and the original XV50 in that respect. It has all new styling inside and out, using the same TNGA GA-K platform as its predecessor. The engine is a revised version of the A25 Dynamic Force family, and the transmission is the new fifth generation Toyota Hybrid power split eCVT.

[DeluxeStang]

11 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

No different than what Ford did with the new Mustang….

I hope that's a joke ?. 

[DeluxeStang]

12 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

So it's basically a thorough refresh they're calling "all new" - with the middle body and doors unchanged.

 

So it's an uglier, more expensive version of the Camry limited to the hybrid powertrain than only a fraction of the previous gen Camry owners actually wanted to buy. It's a good thing that Toyota cult members are braindead. This strategy would have killed the demand for just about any other sedan from another brand. Everyone hates change, until Toyota does it. Genuinely hate how that trash brand gets a pass on everything it does. 

[akirby]

8 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

So it's an uglier, more expensive version of the Camry limited to the hybrid powertrain than only a fraction of the previous gen Camry owners actually wanted to buy. It's a good thing that Toyota cult members are braindead. This strategy would have killed the demand for just about any other sedan from another brand. Everyone hates change, until Toyota does it. Genuinely hate how that trash brand gets a pass on everything it does. 

They sold 40k Camry hybrids last year.  I’m sure most people chose the NA 2.5 since it was the cheapest option.  I’m sure they’ll sell just as many hybrids if that’s the cheapest version. 

[atomcat68]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

They sold 40k Camry hybrids last year.  I’m sure most people chose the NA 2.5 since it was the cheapest option.  I’m sure they’ll sell just as many hybrids if that’s the cheapest version. 

 I think it is a good strategy. They don't have a great EV effort, but they are the kings of hybrids. It should up their green image while keeping buyers who aren't ready for full on EV cars happy.

[rperez817]

On 11/16/2023 at 1:05 AM, DeluxeStang said:

Everyone hates change, until Toyota does it. Genuinely hate how that trash brand gets a pass on everything it does. 

 

14 hours ago, atomcat68 said:

They don't have a great EV effort, but they are the kings of hybrids.

 

If Toyota refuses to put forth a "great EV effort" ASAP and continues its irresponsible hybrid push (as evidenced with 2025 Camry), DeluxeStang you may get your wish of Toyota heading to the bottom of the automotive history trash bin sooner rather than later.

[sullynd]

Not a fan of the styling of the new Camry.  New Prius is shockingly good looking. Imagine if it were a BEV. 

[Tico]

This will sell like hot cakes with MPG ratings in the 40s if the base price is similar to out going model. Of couse everyone here is negative its a Ford forum. I love my Escape hybrid and my other car really is a Mustang. Yes ecoboost but my Stang before that was a GT. Toyota buys will keep bying and they are not brain dead to do so. I would recommend the new camary to any "non car guy" friend looking for a sedan a year from now. Based on facts not what I want them to drive.

[grbeck]

On 11/17/2023 at 8:40 AM, rperez817 said:

 

 

If Toyota refuses to put forth a "great EV effort" ASAP and continues its irresponsible hybrid push (as evidenced with 2025 Camry), DeluxeStang you may get your wish of Toyota heading to the bottom of the automotive history trash bin sooner rather than later.

 

Apparently, "irresponsible" as applied to the new-vehicle market really means "one that real-life paying customers prefer," given the sales figures for Toyota's hybrids. 

[rperez817]

17 minutes ago, grbeck said:

Apparently, "irresponsible" as applied to the new-vehicle market really means "one that real-life paying customers prefer," given the sales figures for Toyota's hybrids. 

 

Regardless of "sales figures for Toyota's hybrids" nowadays, the company's Beyond Zero, multi-pathway strategy that puts too much emphasis on hybrids and FCEV (fool cells) is irresponsible because it weakens the company's competitiveness amid the ongoing automotive industry revolution. Electrek wrote about this earlier this year. Toyota shareholders raise concerns over Tesla's EV lead (electrek.co)

 

Toyota continues wasting precious time and resources on inferior technology like fuel cell and hybrids, which will only slow the automaker's transition even more.

The Japanese automaker seems to be recognizing the urgency after falling behind early. Its “multi-pathway” strategy is distracting it from what’s really important – developing and producing EVs.

 

[grbeck]

9 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Regardless of "sales figures for Toyota's hybrids" nowadays, the company's Beyond Zero, multi-pathway strategy that puts too much emphasis on hybrids and FCEV (fool cells) is irresponsible because it weakens the company's competitiveness amid the ongoing automotive industry revolution. Electrek wrote about this earlier this year. Toyota shareholders raise concerns over Tesla's EV lead (electrek.co)

 

 

 

 

Means nothing. A person can buy ten shares of Toyota stock, and still "raise concerns" at shareholder meetings.

 

That doesn't mean that the majority of shareholders agree, or that the "concerns" are valid. 

 

Take away government incentives that encourage the purchase of Teslas, and see what choices consumers make. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Toyota didn't become the world's biggest carmaker by making mistakes- Where other automakers made the mistake of going all in on ICs or EVs, Toyota wisely followed the middle path where consumer's real wants and needs lie.

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Toyota didn't become the world's biggest carmaker by making mistakes

 

Former Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda once said "It is in Toyota's DNA that mistakes made once will not be repeated". The company had an opportunity to bring its most iconic products like Camry and Prius into the BEV era but failed to capitalize on it. 

 

Unfortunately for Toyota, strategic mistakes of that magnitude are so severe that the company is now "gagging on the electric-car revolution’s dust", as Nitish Pahwa of Slate said.

 

 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Looking at the relentless logarithmic pace of climate change, I wish we could all switch to zero GHG transportation tomorrow, or at least ASAP. But the "electric car revolution" has been little more than road dust, unable to make any meaningful contribution to reducing GHG, and now it's slowing. 

 

What went wrong?

 

Relying on electric cars only when charging capacity will take decades to roll out and most drivers simply can't afford them has set GHG reduction back a decade. Instead we need a problem solving technology neutral approach that leaves EV perfectionism behind and embraces GHG reduction any way that works- Renewable fuels, hybrids, whatever. Unfortunately, per usual, the perfectionists stand in the way of the just plain good.

[rmc523]

14 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Former Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda once said "It is in Toyota's DNA that mistakes made once will not be repeated". The company had an opportunity to bring its most iconic products like Camry and Prius into the BEV era but failed to capitalize on it. 

 

Unfortunately for Toyota, strategic mistakes of that magnitude are so severe that the company is now "gagging on the electric-car revolution’s dust", as Nitish Pahwa of Slate said.

 

 

 

Please stop with the excessive dramatics because some guy has an opinion.

 

They're giving customers what they want, and I'd imagine they're working on BEV replacements.  If anything, I'd argue the hybrid only approach will get people to more thoroughly consider a BEV for their next vehicle, as they'll be more used to partial electric driving.

 

The market is not there yet for all these BEV products whether you like it or not.  Just saying it doesn't make it reality.

Edited November 22, 2023 by rmc523

[silvrsvt]

14 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Relying on electric cars only when charging capacity will take decades to roll out and most drivers simply can't afford them has set GHG reduction back a decade. Instead we need a problem solving technology neutral approach that leaves EV perfectionism behind and embraces GHG reduction any way that works- Renewable fuels, hybrids, whatever. Unfortunately, per usual, the perfectionists stand in the way of the just plain good.

 

Here is the problem there is too much dogma in peoples options.

 

The other issue is this-often when doing something that requires a major change, shooting low to start with is normally a recipe for disaster or nothing happens because there is no incentive to do it.

 

Are we going to actually reach 100% EV by 2035? Most likely not, but I think at 50-75% is very doable. But the optics on just doing that in the press are just political fodder for both sides to use against one another to belittle one another in their talking points. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

That "Go big or get out" advocacy strategy only works if you've got a once in a generation crisis like a world war or epidemic to capitalize on, and even then the change seldom lasts. I used to spend my winter layoff time at the state legislature lobbying and can point to language in Minnesota Statutes I wrote. Later in life I became a small town city council member and my major achievement was getting our failing water system replaced. In both levels of government advocacy has been a process of fits and starts, statewide laws I advocated for in the early 1970s were rejected by the legislature then, passed in part by the state's two largest cities, finally passed by the legislature in the 1990s, and were improved a bit this year. The water system was a decade long project that began with a modest proposal to just duplicate the inadequate system so it didn't leak which gained support with every leak we couldn't find. Thanks to more state and federal funding then we first expected during the COVID-19 emergency we were able to build a state of the art system with 100% federal and state funding, which won over our conservative council members. I'm working on a street project now which I had to initiate as a culvert and drainage project to meet the federal funding requirements and thanks to revised funding criteria we're able to include streets too, and even that modest project will take several years.

 

So if you want to slow climate change, you really need to lose the "radical change" strategy that even drives allies like me away and use a decades long gradualism strategy. Simple example- Tell me I have to buy an EV and you've made an opponent of me, offered me a hybrid option and I might buy it with no pressure or incentives needed!

 

[akirby]

41 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The other issue is this-often when doing something that requires a major change, shooting low to start with is normally a recipe for disaster or nothing happens because there is no incentive to do it

it’s not about shooting low or high.  It’s about making bad decisions based on unrealistic goals.  Hybrids are better than non hybrids and they’re 100% viable today.  PHEVs - when charged and driven short distances - are almost as effective as BEVs.  What happens if the BEV transition takes a lot longer than anticipated?  Then you perpetuate non electrified ICE which is worse.  It’s called not putting all your eggs in one basket.  Do all 3 and you can easily pivot to whichever one is needed based on consumer demand, government regulation, etc.  None preclude the other and doing 40% BEVs instead of 50% makes no difference in the big scheme.

[jniffen]

On 11/15/2023 at 1:01 PM, akirby said:

It’s just as new as every other Camry the last 30 years.  Which isn’t a bad thing.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  You listening Ford?

They did that with the Pinto.  Nothing drastic on the overall design, but mechanically making improvements along the way.

 

I do hate to hear from those who really don't know, the wagon did not have the rear end gas problem and that the News organization to create the explosion problem had to jack up the front end of the other car to cause the gas tank to break open.

I will say, 'Yes, Ford should have never let the car leave the factory without the $65.00 correction part.'

[grbeck]

25 minutes ago, jniffen said:

They did that with the Pinto.  Nothing drastic on the overall design, but mechanically making improvements along the way.

 

I do hate to hear from those who really don't know, the wagon did not have the rear end gas problem and that the News organization to create the explosion problem had to jack up the front end of the other car to cause the gas tank to break open.

I will say, 'Yes, Ford should have never let the car leave the factory without the $65.00 correction part.'

 

The federal agency not only jacked up the front of the Chevrolet Impala (a much heavier car), but also turned on its headlights (to ensure a spark) and filled the Pinto's tank to capacity. That is because the first tests did not result in an explosion!

The Pinto met applicable government standards for fuel-tank integrity (also note that the standards were in flux when Ford was developing the car). The Mother Jones article wildly overstated the number of Pinto deaths due to fire.

 

The car's overall safety record, when compared to competitive small cars of that era, was better than average. If we limit it to fire-related accidents, the Pinto is only a little worse than average (and it wasn't the worst - the AMC Gremlin was the worst). 

[silvrsvt]

38 minutes ago, akirby said:

it’s not about shooting low or high.  It’s about making bad decisions based on unrealistic goals.  Hybrids are better than non hybrids and they’re 100% viable today.  PHEVs - when charged and driven short distances - are almost as effective as BEVs.  What happens if the BEV transition takes a lot longer than anticipated?  Then you perpetuate non electrified ICE which is worse.  It’s called not putting all your eggs in one basket.  Do all 3 and you can easily pivot to whichever one is needed based on consumer demand, government regulation, etc.  None preclude the other and doing 40% BEVs instead of 50% makes no difference in the big scheme.

 

But its also about optics too-I think Legacy automakers where getting $$$$ in their eyes with the move to EVs-cheaper to build and more profitable then ICE products. Which was the driving force upon till recently when reality started biting back with diminishing sales. 

 

In Fords case they have all three pretty well covered, other makers, not so much.