Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

L8_ApexL8_Apex Posts: 187
Welcome to the continuation of the Honda Accord
vs. Toyota Camry - Round Two
topic. Those of you
joining us from that topic are welcome to continue
your discussion.

If you're new to this topic, you may want to
follow the above link for additional archived


Sedans Host


  • number17number17 Posts: 69
    The Accord vs Camry discussion can actually last 3 rounds? I think that means one thing for sure - both are excellent vehicles.

    Now, back to the discussion ...

    1/ Sportiness in a mid-sized sedan: I agree sporty coupes like Prelude, Celica ... are sportier than any of the mid-sized sedans, but that does not mean buyers in this market are not necessarily looking for some fun in their car. Sure, in an ideal world, you drive a sports car when you want to have some fun, and you drive the mid-sized sedan to go to dinner with your family, drive the jeep for camping trips, and van for long trips .... however, $$ is a limited resource for most ppl (if it's not for you, you should not be reading this thread - try 911 Carrera C5 ... that's one FUN car!), some ppl (like myself) do prefer a vehicle that has the convenience of 4 doors, practicality of useable backseat, yet does not give up their sportiness in their car. Thus sports sedans, which are compromises between sportiness and practicality.

    2/ Continuing with that theory, all mid-sized cars are a compromise, somewhere in between sportiness and comfort, within a limited budget. The Accord has a heavier emphasis on sportiness, handling, while sacrificng quietness, comfort ... the Camry is designed to max out comfort, refinement, smoothness, at the price of sportiness. Can a car be all sporty while is also comfortable and quiet?? Sure it can, but not within this price range = )

    3/ Thus, going back to square 1 - Accord is for those are looking for the practicality of a mid-size sedan, yet enjoys driving, and is willing to give up some comfort and quietness for it. Camry is for those who don't care much about driving fun, and would rather opt for the quietness, refinment, smoothness .... I think both are excellent vehicles, with different purposes in a relative sense. Obviously, both are built within the limitation of 'mid-sized sedans', so as sporty as the Accord is, it still is no Prelude. And as refined / comfortable as the Camry is, it is no luxury sedan.

    I think most of us are in agreement on these 3 points .... and thus what continues to amaze me is ... why is the discussion still alive? = ) I thought these 3 points should be crystal clear.

  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    I think everyone knows that the Camry has got a more luxury feel, while the Accord has got a sportier feel.

    There is nothing wrong with prefering one way or the other. Everyone should buy what suits themselves.

    Both cars have huge number of fans. Since these two cars (and brands) are arch rivals, that's probably why this subject dragged on so long.
  • what i tell my honda customers is simply this:

    both cars are great vehicles, but the main difference is
    the accord is a drivers vehicle
    the camry is a riders car
  • liufeiliufei Posts: 201
    Driver's vehicle? Rider's car??
    Heh, I like your style 1salesman1. :)

    One thing though, if these two cars are arch rivals, yet their target driver consist of two different groups, then its feasible when Toyota and Honda design and market them, they knowingly avoid direct competition by doing so. I find that hard to believe, but its logically feasible.
  • everydayeveryday Posts: 53
    Is that when all your prospective buyers leave your dealership and go buy a Camry? Toyota now knows where all their sales come from.

    Round Three? I thought we're in round fifteen by now. And still no signs of a decision. It's time for somebody to bite an ear off....
  • i would bet that about 80% people that come on my lot and look at the accord have already looked at the camry or will (that is if i get them driving off in a new accord before they have a chance to look at the camry :))
  • i guess that you were not aware of the fact that as far as consumer purchases, the accord actually beat the camry last year. but camry does about 15% of their business with fleet sales which maked them the #1 last year.

    and about your cocky remark, i tell most of my customers that come in and look at the accord first to go drive a camry or drive them in one that i have on my used lot to compare. and guess what, i dont care if they buy a toyota, because they are good buys, and i wont worry about the sales that i lost when i go to the bank with my comm.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    The V6 Accord will not be a drivers vehicle until it's available with a manual transmission. Period.
  • that is a very valid point, that is the only thing about the accord i wish they would change. but since they came out with the v6 in the accord in 1995, it has never been an option.
  • number17number17 Posts: 69
    I do not agree. Sure the lack of a MT takes away a lot of driver interaction, and thus is a lot less fun to drive. Yet, the overall driving dynamics of the car is still sporty, thus making it still a driver's vehicle compared to other mid-sized sedans IMO.

    You cannot say AT Ferrari 456 GT is not a driver's car. It is just not as sporty as a MT one.

    Honda's never developed the manual tranny for this 3.0L V6 engine since it debuted back in 94, I believe. THe V6 engine was deployed specifically for the NA market only, cos NAmericans feel that a 4cyc sedan is NOT a serious car, regardless of what kind of output the 4 banger can produce. Market surveys also show that NAmerican drivers DO NOT like shifting for themselves. As a matter of fact, only 5% of Maxima's are sold with 5sp MT even though it is an option. 95% are sold with AT. Thus it was a business decision to not spend the $$ on developing the MT for the engine made specifically for NA.

    European Accords and Japanese Accords only have 4 banger engines. The Accord Type R has Prelude's 2.2L DOHC VTEC 4 banger, which produces peak of 210hp, and is available with an accurate and precise MT. It is a seriously fun to drive sports sedan.

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    It's probably due to engineering resources at Honda. I can't see it being manufacturing related. That said, the relatively small number of cars Honda would sell with this configuration would probably be at least as, if not more, expensive than the auto. cars. This due to the high fixed cost incurred when designing. Just my .02
  • i agree, though the market would not be kind to a v6 manual in the accord, i would still like to see one and of course drive one.
    #17-they came out with the v6 in '95.
    we sell on average 70% 4cly and 30% v6's.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    I would refrain from bringing in Ferrari to this discussion. By no stretch of the imagination can Honda Accord V6 be compared to those hot italians. Also, the Italian mafia might be looking for you :)

    The only question is then: How can Toyota offer a V6 camry with manual transmission? (I'm not suggesting that the Camry is a trye drivers car either) Bear in mind the Acuras of the 80's and early 90's with V6 and manual transmission.

    Like I stated in my previous post, it probably has to do with engineering resources and associated business decisions.

    However, I still don't think that the V6 Accord is a sporty car. Can't be with a slushbox.
  • its not a sporty car, it is a more sportier sedan than the camry. thats the subject.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    Only the different strategists at the respective companies can explain why Toyota can justify a V6 man. when Honda can't. After all, it would make more sense to Honda to offer this powertrain combo than it does to Toyota, given the otherwise "sporty" character of the Accord, don't you think?
  • liufeiliufei Posts: 201
    That Honda usually can provide a good manual tranny rather than an auto tranny. If the market can sustain the Maxima with manual (a selling point for the SE), why won't Honda do the same with the Accord V6?
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    I agree. Honda's manual transmissions are typically really nice.
  • number17number17 Posts: 69
    "I would refrain from bringing in Ferrari to this
    discussion. By no stretch of the imagination can
    Honda Accord V6 be compared to those hot italians."

    I was not comparing Accords' to Ferrari. I was just pointing out that MT or AT is not the only determining factor in a car's sportiness. It is a big factor, I agree, but it is not the only factor.

    Simple illustration - if Buick Century is offered with a 5sp MT, I'd still take AT Accord V6 as the sportier car any day.

    "The only question is then: How can Toyota offer a
    V6 camry with manual transmission? (I'm not
    suggesting that the Camry is a trye drivers car
    either) Bear in mind the Acuras of the 80's and
    early 90's with V6 and manual transmission."

    Keep in mind, the 3.0L Accord VTEC engine and 3.2L TL VTEC engine are not based on the 3.2L V6 engine used in the early - mid 90's Acura Legend V6 engine. That engine was non VTEC, and was relatively problematic, and though it was avail with a 6sp MT gearbox, it was probably the reason for Honda to not deploy the same engine.

    The 3.0L V6 used in the Camry is a workhorse used in various other Toyota cars, and it was traditionally available with a MT. Toyota has offered the MT as an option on the Camry V6, but only for the lowest trim model. Equipping the car with any feature pretty much means you'll get a slushbox.

    "However, I still don't think that the V6 Accord is a sporty car. Can't be with a slushbox."

    If slushbox or MT is the only determining factor you are looking at here then I agree Accord is not a sporty car. Neither is a 456GT then. =)

    It all depends on how you define as 'sporty car'. I'd love a V6-MT Accord, but its sporty driving dynamics makes it still sportier than most of its competitors, and thus I'd still consider it a sporty mid-sized sedan. But I agree without the MT, it takes away a lot of driver interaction and a lot of fun to drive.

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    Again, it's all a matter of defining sporty. I think a Ferrari can be sporty with its automated shifter. An accord can not with its automatic transmission. The mob is looking for you.......

    I was looking at an LE V6 before. It was loaded. Nice car, but then I got this super deal on a Volvo S70.

    Other than that- good points.
  • number17number17 Posts: 69
    True, it's all a matter of defining "sporty".

    I was just saying MT/ AT is not the only factor in determining if a car is sporty or not, and you seem to agree with me by saying a Ferrari can be sporty with AT.

    In that case, the Accord V6 can't be 'unsporty by default' just because it has a slushbox.

    Obviously, the lack of a MT is a big downside... and hence I'd look at the 626, Passat, and Maxima before I look at the Accord. Still, even with a AT it is still relatively sportier than most other mid-sized sedans .....


    ps - if the Mob come for me I'd have the Yakutza to backme up ... it's ok = )
Sign In or Register to comment.