Riding the Route 36 bus to the neighborhood grocery store afforded me this view of these two Toyota Camrys (complete with eleventh-generation Ford Thunderbird photobomb). I don’t recall ever having seen two examples of these particular generations of Camry side-by-side ever before. It wasn’t until only several years ago that I became aware there were two different versions of the Camry globally, starting for model year 1991, with the U.S. receiving a version of the wide-body XV10 model as our third-generation Camry, while Japan got the “regular” V30 for 1990.
In the United States, we would recognize these two pictured cars as the sixth (2006 – ’11) and second-generation (1987 – ’91) Camry, respectively. While it’s true that almost two decades separate the designs of these two cars, seeing them next to each other almost makes it look like they’re also two size classes apart, as well.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, September 27, 2015.
I would take the T-Bird over either one.
I really need to start looking at ALL the cars in the picture. I never even noticed the T-Bird!
Nice snapshot, Joseph…
Only confirms, why I hate the new, modern cars… They all look fat in the arse.
The Camry used to be a lean, trim car in the 1st and 2nd generations, got plump in the 3rd gen, then was lower and trimmer in the 4th gen… When the 5th Camry showed up, EVERY gen since then became lardassed and beluga-ed.
Why are all the new family sedans all high sided and jellybeanish? Like all manufacturers, went to the school of UGLY, drew four wheels, and added four doors.
I used to own three Camrys… An 85, 86 and an 89…. Great cars, that’re still part of the everyday traffic scene.
Though, the 1st gen 1983-86, is becoming more far and few between.
Looking at the two contrasts in generations of Camry… The Camry was probably embarrassed at it’s 30th high school reunion… With that enormous weight gain. 😛
When I saw the Camry, on the left, I felt like grabbing a harpoon.
…”They all look fat in the arse”….
I fully agree, there’s way too much sheet metal (and plastic) around and behind the rear wheel, partly due to the -often- strong wedge shape. Another one:
I totally agree with every word!
why I hate the new, modern cars…They all look fat in the arse”
Exactly. It’s not just some Anti Camry bias either, I can think of quite a few other offenders…
Geeze- that example really shows it bad. I can only equate this bloated, swollen look to an over-inflated balloon, or perhaps someone recently attacked by a swarm of hornets. . . There’s zaftig styling, and then there’s just plain rolly-pollyness.
Blame the trend on Cadillac CTS and Chrysler 300.
Ha! This is a great shot! And people complained that the ’71 – ’73 Mustangs were fat-assed…
The ’71-’73 Mustang used to be considered the biggest, fattest Mustang of all. Not anymore! It looks positively tiny here.
The 2010 restyle was supposed to make the rear end look smaller, I got to park my 2015 next to a 65-66 Mustang for pictures
relax Poncho
Gosh, when did we actively decide to farm out our oversized American cars to our Japanese friends. So do we award the deadly sin to ourselves for demanding it or Toyota for complying. It does show that Toyota needs to find right quick a Japanese Bill Mitchell to do big with style.
If I recall correctly, the North American market is now more important to Toyota (and Honda) than the Japanese market, which has been stagnant for a long time.
Sort of? I think part of the issue is that the Japanese market (which isn’t doing too bad in numerical terms, surprisingly) has really shifted back to kei cars and hybrids. I assume it’s about running costs — kei cars are dramatically cheaper to own and hybrids still get various tax breaks. I don’t think the Camry is sold at all in Japan at this point, the Accord is offered only in hybrid form last time I checked, and the Corolla (which used to be the best-selling JDM car) has been moved to a smaller and cheaper platform because demand has largely dried up. So, it’s not stagnation per se but rather a major shift toward the smallest and cheapest cars. As a result, I would guess that the U.S. is now more profitable for Honda and Toyota than the home market is. (I’m guessing, but both companies sell a lot more bigger and more expensive cars here than in other markets.)
The US market has been a major source of profits for the Japanese manufacturers, particularly Honda and Toyota. But think back to the late 70’s and early 80’s when just about every Japanese manufacturer was trying to set up their own distribution channels. No longer were Mazda, Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Isuzu content to sell their cars through the Big 3’s “captive import” plan. Only one of these manufacturers are still doing well in the US market and that’s not by much.
GM could also do with a Bill Mitchell. So could a lot of other carmakers.
What a great – and telling – photo! It really shows how “dainty” those early Camrys now look.
It would be interesting to see this second-generation Camry beside a contemporary Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Lumina. From what I’ve read, the first-generation Taurus, in particular, was the design target (in terms of length and width) for the third-generation Camry.
I was just looking at one of Paul’s old posts about the ’78 Eldorado. While I disagree with him pretty much across the board, I think there’s something to the idea that by ’78, American cars had become pretty damned big. Porcine, even.
I wonder if we’re reaching that point again, where the designers will soon realize that it’s time to go on a diet, start with a clean sheet, trim the excess and the flab, and reveal the six-pack underneath. I mean, look at the current Camry! It’s a lard-ass, and it looks it. (I will say, though, I had a Camry as a rental earlier this year, and it was a shockingly good car, and not a bad driver, either.) The new Fusion has an athletic frame, but it’s carrying a lot of extra bulk on that frame. The new Benzes, the new Fords, the new Hondas, especially the new BMWs… They all look like they hit the all-you-can-eat buffet pretty damned hard.
I can’t help but think part of the problem is, the proportions are a result of wind dynamics and drag coefficients- and also trying too hard to make interior room maximized in a smaller vehicle. Deck lids have become an abbreviated, almost imperceptible extension of the greenhouse, while cabin height has increased. Unless you buy a truck, the bench seat is a dead concept and it would be mostly pointless, anyway, because there aren’t any 80″ wide cars on the road anymore to accommodate three abreast. This problem began with the downsized B-body cars. Despite most of the interior dimensions increasing slightly with the 1977 redesign, one thing that didn’t increase was interior width. I have owned both pre and post ’77 GM cars and can say there was definitely more shoulder room when we had the back of the car full of lumber and three adults sitting on the front seat. Thinning the doors and emphasizing sheer design on the exterior skin has since become common practice. But, combined with the jelly bean look that has taken precedence, it has evolved into the bloated shapes we see today.
… and not just them. Compare the current Mazda 3 with a 323 – the newer car is positively monstrous, in fact it is as large as the 626 used to be. The 6 is now Jaguar size…
Certainly not just them….
Looking at the two Porsches side-by-side, I find the older Porsche more attractive than the newer Porsche.
The 79 911 was about 65 inch wide. A new one is 71 inches wide, not much wider, perhaps about 10%. The old one is 52 inches high, the new is 51. The two pictures exaggerate the difference.
The one on the left is a 1963 Ur-Elfer. Here’s a whole gallery of 50 years (1963-2013) Porsche 911:
http://www.autoblog.nl/image-gallery?file=Porsche/50_jaar_Porsche_911/
The 1965 911 was still 52 inches high.
They’re actually way closer than I expected, I figured the new one would be taller but they look pretty even. The greenhouses seem to have retained their basic proportions as well. The thing to keep in mind is the “turbo look” of the old 911 has essentially been the slate on which Porsche has evolved the subsequent redesigns, and I suspect if a 930 stood in for this very early narrow body 911 the bloat of the new model wouldn’t be nearly as apparent.
Good point.
I actually like both of these for style.
The 2 (Scion iA) is not much larger than a 1991-1994 323.
According to Wikipedia…
323:
165.9–171.5 in. long
98.4 in. wheelbase
65.7–66.5 in. wide
2,006–2,668 lb (I guess the AWD models are responsible for the latter)
iA:
170.1 in. long
101.2 in. wheelbase
66.7 in. wide
2,303.8 lb
However, the iA has slightly less interior room than the 323 (86 versus 92 cubic feet, according to the EPA) in exchange for two cubic feet of trunk space.
As is the current generation Honda Accord when compared to the first 3 generations of Accords.
🙁
My first car was a 1989 Toyota Camry. Although I didn’t find it very attractive at the time, compared to the more recent Camry next to it, I find it very handsome.
Good picture, good story!
All cars are bigger now. It’s been so subtle it’s been hardly noticed, until you see an old Camry next to a new one…ditto the Accord, Civic, Corrolla…
Take “new and improved” = little more room, add govt regulations for safety, add proliferation of trucks and SUVs (make my car sit a little higher), and add the added girth of Americans, and we get BIG. Cars.
In the 70s, domestic mid-size cars were truly big (and full-size huge). I saw a collonade 73 Cutlass parked next to a late-model Accord the other day…the Olds was longer, of course, but lower AND the trunk was a lot lower, so the overall effect was one of, hmmm, which car is bigger?
Bring on the bloat, I hate tiny cars. Pretty much any car on the road today could use about another foot in trunk length to get rid of any lines that suggest a hatchback.
Even though they are still kind of boring, pretty much all the Japanese cars like the Accord, Civic, Corolla, Camry etc. look better than their penalty box precursors.
Joseph Dennis,
It’s not just the Camry that is/was available in 2 widths (body sizes) at the same time, the Accord was also. The car called the Acura TSX was sold nearly everywhere outside the U.S. as the Accord. And the Mazda 626 had 1 or 2 generations where it was sold in “different” sizes. Though in other markets the 626 went by the Zedos (Xedos?) name.
Wasn’t the Misubishi Galant also sold in 2 different sizes.
In Australia both sizes of Accord were sold – the smaller Euro one as the Accord Euro, and the larger US one as Accord. IIRC Australia was the only country in the world to get both, but they’re not that common a sight in either size.
IIRC you did get a bigger 626 than us for a while. Would have been interesting.
And you’re right on the Galant – we lengthened and widened the first FWD Galant in the eighties to make the Magna/Verada/Diamante, then Japan picked up on our idea.
Common cars in both sizes in NZ as are Camrys we had the wide body new(it was developed here) and plenty of the JDM narrow version. Galants are in three sizes Mirage size JDM Legnum Galant size and the larger Diamante was available ex Japan long before Australia got the idea mate o mine had a 2.5 V6 92 model ex JDM.
Pete, Accords not common in Australia?? Both the Euro and normal Accord are extremely common in Australia – Honda were selling 10,000 Euros and 7,000 Accords at their peak – that’s 17k a year. Nothing to sneeze at.
I prefer to drive a mid-size car, but new cars have so much interior padding, and such wide pillars with small windows, that even large cars seem tiny inside. I want to spread out and have some room. Sit in a new Taurus and you’ll be shocked at how cramped it is.
I would much rather drive my 97 Volvo wagon than my wife’s ’14 Accord…I can sit up and see out of the Volvo, and don’t feel like I’m sitting on the floor.
I had a 91 Camry in that blue color, with blue cloth interior…EVERYTHING was blue…dash, steering wheel, shift knob…the whole shebang. A neighbor in the apartment complex had one too, and I found out one morning that ours were keyed the same too…unlocked the door, sat down, and wondered why my car had become an automatic overnight. Got out, locked the door and found my car…
Yep, my in-laws have a Fusion, and although it is a nice car it also feels like I’m sitting in a bunker. And the Taurus isn’t much if any roomier than the Fusion yet is significantly larger outside.
It’s no mystery why CUVs and trucks get more and more popular each year. Car designers have lost touch with what people want IMO.
Of course some of that is due to safety improvements and that isn’t a bad thing. A lot of it though is just form over function in today’s designs.
The Ford Five Hundred/Taurus from a few years back was specifically designed to imitate the upright, SUV-style seating position. It also featured a very glassy greenhouse. It also didn’t sell very well.
Everyone including Consumer Reports has pointed out that the current much larger Taurus isn’t much bigger inside than any intermediate sedan.
Household appliances are going the same way. Approaching spherical.
I suppose it’s efficient in terms of minimum surface for the volume, but in the real world it’s wildly inefficient. A refrigerator or computer or car has to fit into a strictly limited space. (Cabinets, desk, garage.) If the device is rectangular, its contents can fill the entire space. If it’s closer to spherical, its outer edges bump the walls of the space but the contents are only filling about 3/4 of the available volume. Result: Much less room for food or circuit boards or passengers.
Overstuffed as it is, at least the 6th Gen isn’t hideous like Toyota’s newest designs. Over the past 30 years I can really only think of a handful of Toyota vehicles that were genuinely attractive. But they also weren’t an offensive hodge podge of angles and bulges like they are today.
To me, the best Camry in terms of design and size is the 3rd generation (92-96). It has handsome curves, nice proportions, and there is not too much “junk in the trunk.” I enjoy my ’92 Camry daily driver every day because it has decent power from its 4 cylinder motor and it is “just” the right size.
I, for one, prefer the 2nd generation and 4th generation Camry. I find them to be the best looking Camrys produced.
I have a 2nd generation also, but the interior is a little tighter and the 4 cylinder in that one has less power. Still good looking and also a fun “little” car to drive!
This was a great model its the 3rd gen development model that nobody but New Zealand got, fast good not great handling it was dumbed down considerably and the engine redesigned for world consumption, This was my sisters car new in 91, awful photo I know
Try again
Delivered by train? Only joking. And what a choice at the lights. Normally I’ll pick the lane that doesn’t have a camry in it
I did not find the 6th generation Camry to be very attractive. However, the Aurion – what we called the V6 6th gen in Australia, and which shared the body with certain Asian/Russian (?) markets’ Camry – was much more attractive.
The 7th generation Camry massively cleaned up the styling with nice, simple, angular lines. And yet people on the internet still derided it for being ugly! Bland, maybe, to some, but ugly? I just didn’t understand. The only styling aspect I disliked was the lower-trim models’ plastic-filled fog light cut-outs. But to me, it was the most handsome Camry since the 3rd gen.
Now there’s the 8th generation which a lot of people I talk to thinks looks more expensive and upscale. It’s growing on me but very, very slowly. Most Camrys in Australia are base models bought by fleets, so that’s all I tend to see.
I doubt I could tell a new Camry from a ten year old one, the changes in style have been so tentative. The Aurion had a different body? I always figured it was just a Camry with a V6 and a funny name.
Tall trunks are not only part of the aero shape but obviously have more cubic feet inside. There are some smallish cars that have a lot of room inside, in the US the Versa Note and Honda Fit (Jazz).
Rollover laws have resulted in thick A pillars. So why not make them of much higher strength materials, and angle the thickess to be the least from the drivers eye?
It is a shame some older cars lack certain safety features because they are reliable and look good. That 06-11 Camry is hidious, looking like 10 Pounds of stuff in a 5 Pound bag, but it is reliable.
I know. For all the safety today’s cars offer, they look absolutely hideous!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The first generation Camry was just too angular and boxy for my taste; the second generation just seemed bland and hardly distinguishable from the Corolla of the same period. Third generation pushed the Camry firmly into midsize territory, where it has stayed. The fourth generation brought back a bit of angularity. The fifth generation, for me, turned out rather good-looking, with a nice sweep from front to rear.
We own a sixth generation Camry, in its hybrid guise. I might complain that it looks a bit chunky compared to the previous generation, with a few odd bulges here and there. But the car is practical, quite comfortable (especially on good highways), has plenty of room for four good-sized adults (five in a pinch), has a great sound system and terrific air conditioning, and has been completely reliable. And we bought it used. It also gets decent gas mileage–generally 32-34 in city driving, 36-38 on the highway.
Looks aren’t everything.
I think what the Camry shows is that although the auto writers are always pushing the new and radical, Americans prefer a middle sized car with conservative styling usually. Toyota realizes that, and doesn’t really care about the comments. they will just take the sales.