Talk:Toyota Camry (XV10)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Toyota Camry (XV10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403230955/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com:80/1992-to-1996-toyota-camry-6.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1992-to-1996-toyota-camry-6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201131812/http://www.automallusa.net:80/1995/toyota/camry/reviews.html to http://www.automallusa.net/1995/toyota/camry/reviews.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://e-server.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/research/dp/98/cf23/dp.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Development Text Misleading

I understand that a 3rd party reported on SXV10 development, but sources are NOT always reliable. The SXV10 design was already approved well before the ES 250 and LS 400 hit showrooms. Toyota internally, settled on a final design for the ES 250 in 1987. So, yes USA execs who had seen it in 1988, were apprehensive of its appeal. However, the wording in the text is borderline tone deaf and dismisses the fact, that Toyota had already made the necessary moves to make the SXV10 an attractive and appealing car by early 1989, when the ES 250 was barely revealed.
Thus the impression being given in the article doesn't make sense, as even the wagon had been designed by the spring of 1989 (before ES 250 launch and press embargo). A variant which arrived in April/May 1992. This is a major problem, I have with Wikipedia and the general public at large. Not realizing how much time it takes to develop an automobile and how much time it takes to achieve certain stages from approval to launch.

Toyota did not make any visible changes to the SXV10 design after the ES 250 debuted in 1989, outside of mechanical internals or very minute details. I can bet, there are Japanese patent photos from 1989, that also show the final interior. If any changes were made to the design, it was not because of market reception to the ES 250 post-September 1989. Please realize that just because a car comes out on XX date publicly, it doesn't mean it was easily influenced by all events prior to final release date. Stop making that assumption or allowing articles mistakenly written in that fashion, have strong credibility as a source.

There is no way that any major changes were made to a car that Toyota finished designing in 1988 and then filed for patent months later in 1989, showcasing a mockup 99.9% identical to the production vehicle released in 1991. How could they magically somehow change their mind in between a design freeze 3 years earlier and release in late 1991? The early 1989 photo looks like the typical light coloured 1992 Camry XLE V6, so it is very obvious the author in the source made their own inaccurate guesstimate and wrongly assumed Toyota was still designing the car in 1989-90, just because the Lexus set came out before the 1992 model. Well, they weren't, as those decisions were made in 1988 and Toyota filed for legal protection in early 1989 on them, with photo evidence.

The religious reliance on verifiable sources, has to take into account something of this level. Someone can easily write such a thing, because the average person rarely has access to review development or pre-production evidence on a model, that disproves lazy guesstimates. Simply put, nothing in this article should point towards the idea, that reception to Lexus affected this car, when Lexus wasn't public when this all took place.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)