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

1212224262791

Comments

  • I got a Honda Accord EX V-6, and I got a Toyota Camry XLE V-6. I am happy with both cars. What is the point of trying to prove which car is better? You just have to alternate them, depending on your mood of that morning.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    How did this eternal debate manage to go dormant long enough to put itself in the archives?!

    No matter - it's back to stay, so let's go for some more rounds! :-)

    Pat
    Host
    Sedans Message Board
  • black_tulipblack_tulip Posts: 438
    "How did this eternal debate manage to go dormant long enough to put itself in the archives?!"

    Easy. It was in the "comparison" board. No offense, but that is as good as archived.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I hear you.

    But did you notice we followed through with your suggestion and got this board listed separately in the drop-down box?

    And also we've put a link to this board at the top of the main Sedans board.

    Posting here HAS picked up here since we did that. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Pat
    Host
    Sedans Message Board
  • black_tulipblack_tulip Posts: 438
    Yes, I noticed the link and I think traffic is beginning to pick up here. I was just being facetious!
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    2000 Toyota Camry XLE V6

    30K summary

    Miles Covered: 29,927
    Running Cost : $3,062.24
    Running Cost per mile: 10.23 cents

    Gas consumed: 1274.64 Gallons
    Cost of Gas: $2,052.37
    Average Economy: 23.5 MPG
    Best: 30.2 MPG
    Worst: 16.8 MPG

    Maintenance Cost: $720.98
    Maintenance Cost per mile: 2.4 cents

    Gas Cost: $2052.37
    Gas Cost per mile: 6.85 cents

    Miscellaneous costs: 0.98 cents per mile

    (Still working on Total Cost of Ownership with depreciation and insurance)
  • fredvhfredvh Posts: 853
    Edmunds has a new feature called "True Cost To Own". It is listed when one researches out the various vehicles on the new car heading. It is one of the 13 subjects when you click on a particular vehicle. It is very useful when comparing one vehicle to another. "True Cost To Own" takes the purchase price and adds things like depreciation, insurance, license fees, etc. and gives you a figure for 5-yr ownership. They even tailor it to your particular zip code. I tried it on a few vehicles and it is very useful.
  • jomiwijomiwi Posts: 2
    Consumer Guide:
    V-6 EX : 7.6 s
    Camry V6: 8.3 s

    Motor Trend:
    V-6 EX : 7.4 s
    Camry SE V6: 8.0 s

    Saw a copy of Car and Driver in the doctor's office today where they compare various sedans.
    Both the Accord LX V6 and the Camry V6 were low-mid 8's in 0-60 time. Slower times than above, and both sources above say the Accord is faster.
    Is the LX V6 slower than the EX V6(seems unlikely)or is C&D's time inaccurate?
  • hondacarehondacare Posts: 3
    Now understand that I am biased. I am a sales manager for a Honda dealership. Do not take my word for it. Do the research yourself. I have seen several cases of this sludge problem in the past month.

    I used yahoo and performed the following search:
    toyota sludge oil

    The sludge issue involves all Toyotas 4 and 6 cylinder. The only vehicle not affected is the Sequoia.
  • th83th83 Posts: 164
    I was wondering the same thing when I compared Motor Trend's test with C/D's. The 0-60 times in the Car and Driver comparison were quite a bit slower than the numbers MT recorded.

    Accord: Motor Trend-7.4, Car and Driver-8.3
    Altima: Motor Trend-6.6, Car and Driver-7.3
    Camry: Motor Trend-8.0, Car and Driver-8.2
    Impala: Motor Trend-7.7, Car and Driver-8.6
    Taurus: Motor Trend-8.1, Car and Driver-8.9

    Maybe different weather had something to do with the time differences. The C/D test was conducted in the winter whereas the MT test was done in the spring. That must be it because there is no way the V6 Accord is only .9 seconds quicker 0-90 than the 4 cylinder automatic(18.8 versus 19.7).
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    hondacare: See the Toyota Camry thread (where you cross-posted) in the Sedans section to see where you have made a mistake.

    Acceleration:
    The Accord V6 & Camry V6 have similar power to weight ratios, but Toyota tunes their automatic for smoothness among anything else. This means each shift takes a long time to perform. This kills acceleration times, but everyone loves its smoothness.
  • np1908np1908 Posts: 39
    I found Saturn L300 to be one of the most under-appreciated mid-size sedan models around. Agreed, it may not match the reliability of Accords/Camry. Recently, I was in the market for a mid-size sedan (owned an Accord), and did my own research and included Saturn L-series for consideration along with Accord/Camry/Altima and ultimately ended up purchasing one. Saturn's plus points:
    1) Saturn is the newest divison of GM, started selling Cars only 1990 with a radically different approach; Saturn has had no connection with Detroit with it's factory is located in Tennessee and you will see no association of Saturn with GM in TV ads, etc. Basically run as a separate, independent division;
    2) Saturn has had 50% repeat customers inspite of having only one Model for the years 1990-2000 (surely, a Company must be doing something right if there are 50% repeat customers and the brand name is not a Honda/Toyota);
    3) Recently rated #1 in customer service (toppling Lexus) by JDPower surveys; First non-luxury brand to achieve this in 16 years!
    4) Been getting #1 in JDPower surveys in Sales satisfaction surveys for the past 2 years;
    5) L-series may not match Accord/Camry reliability as it's a recent model from Saturn but their other S-series has been rated good for reliability, quality, fuel mileage;
    6) Sticker price is atleast $2.5K lower for a similarly equipped Camry/Accord.
    7) On my test run, I found L300 handling, steering, cutting corners as nimble, comfortable as Accord/Camry.

    Normally, a person looking at buying a Accord/Camry may not even consider a non-import brand. I also saw it the same way. Until, pleasantly surprised by Saturn.

    As I see it, if one is **willing** to look beyond a Honda/Toyota/Nissan - Saturn is worth a look.
  • naimfan1naimfan1 Posts: 8
    All--

    Just got a 2002 Accord EX last Saturday. It replaced a 1992 Saab 900, which was a scream to take around turns but spent WAY too much time and money in the shop.

    While the Saab was in the shop we rented what turned out to be a Camry, which was just too soft in terms of driving feel. The Camry is an excellent car, for what it does, by any reasonable standard.

    Let's be real: Both the Camry and the Accord are excellent cars with different takes on the same question. Drive both and buy the one you like more. Some of the endless debates seem just silly, as one side tries to convert the other. Both cars offer terrific reliability, resale, etc. I don't think either one approaches the fun to drive factor of a VW Passat, Saab 9-3, etc.

    To anyone on the fence, just try both and buy the one you like more.

    Best Regards,

    Bob
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Camry styling is way to much. Toyota tried too hard to make it sportier. The back tailights look like a Flash Gordon knock-off..
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    is simply to stick a spoiler on the trunk! Camry will never be a sporty car. It doesn't have the looks, power, speed, handling, or interior to do that.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    Because the same thing could be said about the Accord. Both are equally unsporty and bland, although the Accord coupe is the sportiest of both, IMHO.
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    It handles better, is peppier. Even the interior (esp the dash design)is sportier.
  • with the new 2003 Accord coming, It will definitely be the Accord this time in terms of styling, handling, and power. (According to published articles.)

    the new accord is definitely sharper and more powerful than the new camry. I just do not know if they have eliminated the Accord's irritating interior noise.

    although there are times that I really wanted the Camry for its ultra soft ride. Kinda being lulled...which is -as a passenger is nice IMHO.
  • whothemanwhotheman Posts: 169
    The new Accord is ugly, not sporty. And the Camry does look sportier than the new Accord, particularly the SE. The new Accord Coupe looks like a pencil sharpener. Take an Acura CL, and file it down, and you have an Accord coupe. 17" wheels can't save that design. Honda is putting a lot of pressure on their rep to carry it's sales until this car is facelifted! Sales will be god first year, lets see after that.

    Now is not the best time to pick on 'Yota's styling!
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    I said, EXCEPT for exterior styling, Accord is sportier. Actually they may be in a dead heat as far is styling goes. I can't think of a sporty-looking current Toyota model off-hand. And don't say Celica. That's not sporty, that's cartoonish.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    Except for the Celica, MR2 Spyder, Matrix, and Solara, Toyota doesn't have anything sporty.

    Honda has the S2000, Civic Si, and the Accord Coupe. But if we count the Si, may as well throw in the Corolla S for Toyota hehe. And for 2003, we can remove all Accords from the sporty category(as far as I'm concerned). But then your idea of sportyness excludes exterior styling so lets just add everything except the Camry since its "floaty"! =)

    I'll give you that the '02 coupe is more sporty (looking) than the Camry or the Solara. Of all the Hondas, I'm kind of partial to the '02 coupe.
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    I think we are now talking about sporty STYLING. And I still can't think of anything in the entire Toyota/Lexus line-up that fits that description. We can include the S2000, Accord coupe, NSX, CL-S and RSX from Honda/Acura and need go no further because that's probably 4 more than Toyota will have in this decade. And you are joking about the Solara, right? That's an old man's interpretation of a sports coupe. The Matrix? I think the movie version was more entertaining. Toyota has engineered some fine cars, but styling-wise, their cars are either ultra ultra conservative or cartoonish/kooky. The last sporty-looking car from Toyota was the Supra.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    I believe you that you cannot find anything sporty about Toyota when you can completely discount a cars exterior for the sake of simply *saying* its sporty.

    The NSX hasn't changed in like 100 years...

    The CL-S is old man's car. Aside from the red "S", what is sporty about it? Does it having leather make it sporty? In your eyes that must be what sporty is. The TL is sportier(to me). The RSX is a damn sporty Cavalier though.

    Honda period is the old man's interpretation of a car. When is the last time they took a chance? Well, aside from the train wreck '03 Accord. I can admit that the Lexus SC is just as messed up as the Accord though heh.
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    I don't have time to update you on what's happened with Hondas over the last 100 years. Take a look at the average age of Toyota drivers v. Honda drivers. 'Nuff said.

    BTW, old man's cars? Not taking chances? 192 HP on the Camry (LOL). Honda had more than that 5 years ago. Case closed!
  • sivtecsivtec Posts: 8
    vooch stated "The CL-S is old man's car. Aside from the red "S", what is sporty about it? Does it having leather make it sporty? In your eyes that must be what sporty is. The TL is sportier(to me). The RSX is a damn sporty Cavalier though."

    vooch, Acura offers the 'Type-S' trim for those who want extra performance from the base model (extra hp, possibly a limited-slip-diff, 6-speed gearbox, performance wheel setup, etc.). The increased performance is what makes it sporty for the CL-S, TL-S, RSX-S. Consider the 'Type-S' as the closest thing to a 'Type-R' version in the current U.S. market.

    bodydouble stated "Take a look at the average age of Toyota drivers v. Honda drivers. 'Nuff said."

    bodydouble, an average NSX driver isn't 20, nor an average ferrari driver 30. Age has nothing to do in defining what 'sporty' is. Some of the greatest sports cars are owned by people in their 50s.

    Both Toyota and Honda cater to their own market segment, and to the fast changing market trend. Whatever sells will be the underlying factor for the design and specs offered by either of the two companies.
  • whothemanwhotheman Posts: 169
    And NOT factor in interior and exterior styling? Can you skew the meaning of the word anymore? With an Automatic, how "sporting" can ANY Accord be? No one, that I know, would call ANY Accord "sporty". Saying an Accord is more "Sporty" than a Camry, is like saying Chocolate is more interesting than Vanilla!
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    You gotta get out more!
  • whothemanwhotheman Posts: 169
    I guess that's your way of saying I'm right, huh?
  • bodydoublebodydouble Posts: 801
    Actually I couldn't really understand what exactly you were trying to say at all, so I figured a general mean-nothing response was best.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    But chocolate really is more interesting than vanilla. It certainly tastes better. =)

    In my experience, I cannot remember a time when someone I know said that Honda makes sporty cars(of course I only know 1 person heh). Yes, I realize Acura and Honda are pretty much synonomous and that Acura has the CL and the RSX/Integra, but I didn't think we were talking about Acura or Lexus or Infiniti, Chevrolet, Buick etc.

    I realize that the "S" in "CL-S" means 260hp vs. 220hp. I actually shopped the TL but it doesn't have a stick and even if it did I couldn't afford one =)

    Anyway, my point is I thought it was really weird/crazy that you said Toyota doesn't make sporty cars when, of any auto maker, you claim that Honda does, and more so. Made no sense to me, so based on your logic, I had to defend Toyota, because if Honda makes sporty cars, everyone does!

    Also, I think that exterior styling is a *large* part of what makes a car sporty, not all but large. I personally think that most people shopping a sporty car do NOT discount the car's exterior styling whereas, get this, someone shopping a family car or economy car might due to attributes they find more important. Seems thats just me and whotheman. Did you buy your CL and completely ignore it's styling? You may have because I think there is a lot of value in the CL/TL.

    Enough with my run on sentences. But I give.. you think Honda makes sporty stuff(I don't), I think Toyota does(you don't).
Sign In or Register to comment.