After so many years of utter market domination, it’s hard to remember a time when “Camry” was a weird sounding, unfamiliar, meaningless word (it’s a globalization of the Japanese word kanmuri, which means crown). But way back when the first 1983-model Camry sedans and liftbacks washed up on our shores to relieve the old-school rear-drive Corona sedan, hatchback, and wagon (that name, in Latin, also means crown), its future was by no means certain. And you won’t believe the cars Toyota benchmarked while developing its first-ever transverse front-drive vehicle.
Read the 2018 Toyota Camry First Drive review right here.
Easy Bogeys
Today’s Camry is the benchmark, but 1980s Toyotas were anything but. By way of introducing this comparatively radical new Japanese sedan to Motor Trend readers in the May 1983 issue, Bob Nagy faithfully reported the benchmarks established by the development team for its eventual superstar: “The Camry’s performance and handling were to equal those of GM’s X-cars [Chevy Citation, et. al.]. Interior space was to be on a par with both X-cars and Chryco’s K-bodies [Dodge Aries], while the GM J-cars [Chevy Cavalier] were chosen as the mileage bogeys. Ford’s new Tempo/Topaz, the front-drive Mazda 626, and the Honda Accord sedan were also scrutinized for comparison purposes.” Wow. With targets like those, how could Toyota fail?
Rectilineaero
The straight edge was all the rage in the early ’80s, so the first-gen (V10 architecture) Camry’s bodywork features nary a curve nor a fillet inside or out, and yet hours of wind-tunnel tuning paid off. “The basic droop nose/tall tail configuration has been optimized to yield a drag coefficient of 0.36 for the liftback and 0.38 for the notch sedan. That number is aided by such wind-cheating touches as flush-fitted trim and window pillars, an integrated one-piece bumper/air dam, semi-concealed wipers, and aero-faired mirrors.” Drag figures haven’t been released for the new Camry yet, but it should improve on the outgoing XV50 Camry’s 0.27.
Second Swing at FWD
Toyota was super late to the front-drive party, but this second attempt got the design right by mounting the engine transversely and tucking the transaxle in right behind it, greatly reducing the space consumed by the powertrain. The brand’s first attempt was the subcompact Tercel, which managed to miss out on all of the packaging benefits of front-drive by mounting engine longitudinally with the transaxle hanging straight off the back, extending part way under the floor.
Compact Outside, Big Inside
“With an EPA volume index of 107 cubic feet for the sedan and 109 cubic feet for the lift back, the Camry very nearly ranks as an intermediate. Although shorter than either, the Camry has nearly 15 percent more interior area than a Corona and 10 percent more space than a Cressida. Even with an electric sunroof included, the five-passenger Camry will accommodate six-footers in all locations.” Yes, that means that even Toyota’s then-flagship luxury model, the Cressida, featured mere compact interior dimensions. Lexus was but a twinkle in any Toyoda family member’s eye back then.
Impressively Thrifty
OK, sure, circa 1983 EPA mpg ratings can’t be directly compared with today’s greatly revised ones, but the 92-hp/103-lb-ft 2.0-liter SOHC four-banger was rated 31/43 mpg city/highway with the four-speed overdrive automatic transmission. The thriftiest 2018 Camry L earns a 29/41 mpg rating. Of course, the 2018 car is 16.5 inches longer, 5.9 inches wider, 2.0 inches taller, about 850 pounds heavier, and infinitely safer to travel in.
Uninspired Competence
The 2018 Camry is doing its gol-dangdest to drive a stake in the heart of the brand’s bland vanilla reputation—a rep that clearly has its origins in this original family Camry: “Our first brief encounter with the Camry left us feeling that it stands as a competent if uninspired performer. A fair amount of understeer has been designed into the basic Camry act, but body roll was well within limits and trailing throttle behavior reasonably predictable.” We should note that the original Camry’s front strut suspension adhered to Earle S. MacPherson’s original patent design, in that it was located at the bottom by a single lateral link with the front anti-roll bar serving as the diagonal locator.
Pokey, Mon
With a weight-to-power ratio roughly akin to today’s Fusion Hybrid but only four gear ratios to work with, the original Camry was no barn burner. We recorded a 0-60-mph dash in 12.7 seconds, en route to a 19.3-second 72.8-mph quarter mile. Even the lowly Mitsubishi Mirage three-banger would smoke it at the strip. (Imagine how slow the subsequent diesel engine offering must have been!) Lateral grip generated by the precious little 185/70R13 Toyo Z tires was a squeal-y 0.70g (0.01 off the Mirage’s), and the wee 9.5-inch disc/7.8-inch drum brakes whoa’d the Camry notchback from 60 mph in 154 feet—same as a modern 7,729-pound Sierra Denali HD pickup with ABS.
Import Car of the Year
The Camry contended for 1984’s ICOTY honors alongside a similarly new Corolla and the wonky Scooby-Do Mystery-Machine Toyota Van. That year’s contest provides an interesting insight into the relative market savvy of Honda and Toyota, in that three Hondas also contended: The Civic, Civic CRX, and Prelude. When the dust settled and all the points were added up from the three objective and six subjective voting categories, the Hondas took the top three spots (CRX claimed the calipers), and the Toyotas took the bottom three spots.
Blandest of the Imports?
In our 14-page write-up detailing the results of our Import Car of the Year program’s instrumented acceleration, skidpad, and slalom testing and subjective canyon-road running, the Toyota cars didn’t stand out enough to be mentioned until this summary dismissal at the end of the text: “But the Camry and Corolla, two thoroughly competent cars embodying solid Toyota quality, are more difficult to figure. In the end we mark it down to perhaps an excess of blender mentality in the product planning department. Both cars are intended to appeal to as broad a chunk of their respective market segments as possible. And as a possible consequence, neither car has much character.”
Prescient Sum-Up
Nagy pretty much hit the nail on the head with his conclusion: “We think the Camry should prove very appealing to a wide range of buyers, especially those who must regularly carry several adults or who have kids just entering their teens. Although bereft of any readily identifiable personality, the basic design of the Camry indicates that Toyota was looking in all the right places when it came to developing a product for the mid-’80s that could go up against Detroit’s best challengers.”
On a Personal Note…
Ever the savvy product researcher, my dad bought an original Camry hatchback on the recommendation of that oracle of quality/reliability ratings, Consumer Reports. It met the family’s needs quite well, but the automatic transmission ultimately failed, costing my dad some $600 in installation of the $2,500 part (Toyota covered the part outside of warranty because Dad had complained about it before the warranty expired. By the time we sold that car, Consumer Reports had listed the original Camry on its “used cars to avoid” list).
More on the 2018 Toyota Camry:
- 2018 Toyota Camry First Drive
- The 2018 Toyota Camry Spotters Guide
- 2018 Toyota Camry: Why Keep the V-6?
- 11 Cool Facts About the 2018 Toyota Camry
- 2018 Toyota Camry Design Analysis: Camry Carrozzeria
The post Feature Flashback: 1983 Toyota Camry – Oh What a Premonition! appeared first on Motor Trend.
Agya Club Indonesia
