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

1515254565791

Comments

  • carzzzcarzzz Posts: 282
    about the same 7.0 sec for both... from auto.consumerguide.com
  • ... you should keep in mind that the Accord is doing this with regular fuel, while the Camry needs premium fuel to achieve this 0-60 time. You can use regular fuel and go against Toyota's recommendation, however you will take a performance hit on acceleration times. On the other hand, the Accord will improve on that figure with premium fuel.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    On what do you base the statement that the Accord will perform better on premium? Although an engine that needs premium will operate with reduced performance on regular, the converse is generally not true.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The owners manual of the Camry does not require premium for ANY model, but it recommends it for best performance. Sound familiar?

    And the 3.3L Camry will trump the Accord in passing manuevers...

    ~alpha
  • ... but only to the V6 Accord, this does not apply to the 4 cyl Accord or to cars in general. When the 2003 Accord was first released this technical detail was noted in many reviews, and since then it has been proven on the dyno... but Honda uses knock sensors that allow the V6 to use lower octane fuel. This should not be very difficult to accept, since Toyota makes the same claim for the Camry, saying that you can run regular fuel and still operate normally with reduced performance. It just isn't reasonable for a Camry owner to use regular fuel and drive around thinking that he or she still has a performance advantage over an Accord with the same type of fuel, because whatever small advantage was there (only a slight bump in passing time) is wiped out by the cheaper fuel.
  • talon95talon95 Posts: 1,110
    "And the 3.3L Camry will trump the Accord in passing manuevers..."

    Not by everyone's measure... CR shows the ES330 with the 3.3L V6 as turning 45-65 at 5.5 seconds, while the Accord V6 turns 4.2 seconds.

    And there's less than 100 lbs. difference in curb weight between the Camry and the ES, so I believe it's a pretty accurate comparison.
  • I just find out from the link below that all Honda's engines are interference, i.e. if the timing belt breaks, the pistons could intefere and thereby damaging the valves, cam shafts etc... which could be very expensive to repair. Recommended belt replacement is each 60K miles.

    http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=GatesTBR.- pdf&folder=brochure

    Toyota's engines OTH are all non-interference. Nothing happens to the engine when the timing belt breaks.

    The timing belt in the 93 Camry was replaced at about 120K as a preventive maintenance. The one in my '89 Camry LE broke at about 140K. The engine just stopped firing. I coasted the car and parked it on the street then called a tow truck. $150 belt job later, it ran just like before.

    I was considering the Accord for its standard side and curtain airbags, but the interference engine is a big issue.

    Anyone has any more info?
  • bd21bd21 Posts: 437
    O.K., this is not new information and it is not a big deal. First of all the current vision of the Accord 4-cylinder uses a chain, not a belt. The six cylinder model does have a belt and it is supposed be changed at 105,000 miles or 7 years, whichever comes first, which is clearly stated in the owner's manual. The cost to change it is about $300 to $500, which includes the water pump replacement, depending on who does the work. You will not have an issue, if you follow the recommended maintenance in your owner's manual. The timing belt will not break early. Gates is giving a generic 4-year replacement recommendation, which is a good basic rule of thumb. However, in this case it does not apply.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I dont really put much credo in CR acceleration numbers. But since there's no better comparison that I can think of at the present, I'll stand corrected.

    :)

    ~alpha

    PS- It seems to me that CR's 0-60 numbers are most closely aligned with Car and Driver's Street Start. However... Car and Driver can run the Solara SLE Convertible to 60 in 7.7.. the Street Start, and yet... the lighter ES330 is tested by CR at 7.9....

    PPS- Im really waiting for the following C/D comparo:

    Honda Accord EX V6
    Nissan Altima 3.5SE
    Toyota Camry SE V6
    Mitsubishi Galant GTS
    Mazda 6s
    Pontiac G6 GT

    All equipped similarly, leather, moonroof, applicable safety features (traction, stability, side curtains, etc.) Thus equipped, all range from $27,200 to $28,500.
  • I want one with the

    Accord EXV6
    Camry XLEV6
    LaCrosse CXS
    Altima 3.5SL
    Galant LS
    Pontiac G6 GT
    Mazda6 S
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The G6 GT and Mazda 6s are sporting models of their lines, the Galant LS, Camry XLE V6, and Altima 3.5SL are the luxury oriented ones, and the LaCrosse CXS is better suited to compete with the Five Hundred, since its pricing starts where the others in the group above trail off (ie... $29,000). IMO, thats a much less even bunch.

    ~alpha
  • rutger3rutger3 Posts: 361
    The primary difference here is the availability or lack of side curtain airbags. Toyota really missed the boat on this one bigtime and heads should roll at corporate. I drive a 99 camry(166k),and will be getting a new car soon, but just try and find a camry LE or SE with side airbags, it is nearly impossible here in N.J. Both cars are nice and have their pluses, but this is one area where I will not compromise, especially since I keep my cars a long time.
  • Yep!

    I was unable to find any Camry SE and LE in Southern California with side and curtain airbags. The cars would have to be special order from factory with unknown wait time. The dealers were not interested to pursue these deals either!

    These cheap airbags will reduce medical bills in the $300K to $500K easily and lost time and wages in the US in even minor accidents. My wife was broadsided in a 93 Camry by a pickup truck in Mid Oct. we are looking at $500K hospital bill while she still has not regained her memory and reasoning capabilities!

    I agree some heads should roll at Toyota, especially the turkeys sitting fat and dumb in their headquarter in Torrance!
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    How close are you to PA? All the Camry LE 4 cyls there are equipped with the Side Airbags and Curtains option, since thats a different distribution region. You will have 0 trouble finding an LE 4 with that option in that region. And if a dealer in NJ really wants your business, I dont understand why they shouldnt be able to swap (but your car will obviously have some miles on it).

    I definitely agree, though- Toyota missed the boat on this one.

    ~alpha
  • But many of the comparisons these car manufactures have aren't all that compartive either.

    Hence the Car and Driver midsize sedan comparo....

    And How they had a Motortrend Comparo with the Accord EXV6, Camry XLEV6, Galant GTS and Malibu LS

    The galant GTS was the sporty car of that group while the mated it against the luxurious XLEV6 Camry.

    On another note...Mazda has like two different versions of the Mazda6S for 2005....

    Grand Touring---Luxury with All options and no body kit.

    And then you have the Sport...with the sport body kit and all the other sporty options.

    So, you could actually use the Mazda6s as a comparison now...but not last year.

    And I still think the Buick should be used because it is not much bigger than the Grand Prix...which isn't bigger than the Altima or Camry I don't think.

    But either way, I can't wait to see the car comparisons.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    did an odd comparo doesnt mean C/D should. I have always felt there was more parity in C/D comparisons than in others (with occasional lapses like the rather bizarre 10- family sedan test they did most recently in Feb 2003), and I'd rather have the field as close to one another as possible. Theres no real logical reason for a sporting version of one mid-size to be compared to the lux version of another, when both versions of both cars are offered.

    The mfrs. will create comparisons to make their cars look better... hence, Mitsu's own comparison of the Galant GTS to the Camry XLE V6 (which I do like to point out did indeed outhandle and out-brake the Accord EX V6).

    I still completely disagree with the inclusion of the LaCrosse CXS, given its price tag- why should GM have two entrants in a test and Ford and Dodge none, additionally?

    ~alpha
  • azguyazguy Posts: 23
    My wife bought an '04 Camry LE- Special Edition < a limited LE that came in pearl white only, with a lot of extras, like 16" alloy wheels, birdseye accents, moonroof,ABS all around,etc. > and options on the car were side and curtain bags. She would not have bought it without. BTW, I have an '03 Accord LX V6 and it came w/ side bags. Too bad there were not curtain bags available, but I am so short that side bags will probably do the trick.lol We love both cars.
    She swears the ABS saved her from an accident yesterday.
  • azguyazguy Posts: 23
    Seems like about all the differences between the Accord and Camry have been mentioned, but I wanted to point out one that may not be important to a lot of people, but might interest some, especially those who are smaller of stature and/or have physical problesms. My Accord LX V6 is harder to steer than my wife's Camry LE. It just takes less strength to move the wheel in the Camry. Thus, it is somewhat easier to park and handle for some in tight situations. We love both cars, however.
  • I just can't wait to see some comparisons...

    either way it will be interesting...
  • In my personal opinion, it's all about preference. I don't think the Camry is better or the Accord is better.
  • I would prefer the Camry. The improvements made to it, most notably the new instrument panel, as well as the availablity of a new 5-speed automatic on 4-cylinder models, make it more attractive in the market, especially against the Accord.

    The Accord is a nice car, but I don't feel it's up to Camry standards. I know that the Accord was designed to ride harder to compensate for it's handling abilities, but it's a little too hard compared to the Camry. The Camry has a smoother, more luxurious ride which I prefer. And I also think that with the 2005 Accord's revised taillights it looks like a 95 Buick Regal, they could've made them amber at least.

    I like both cars, but the edge, for me anyway, goes to the Camry.
  • It may be just my perception, but there semm to be far more complaints about serious, functional problems in the Accord forums than the Camry.
  • jguojguo Posts: 49
    Sure, whatever floats your boat. I mean that literally :)
  • jguojguo Posts: 49
    Probably just your perception. If you go to the Camry's Problems & Solutions board, there are plenty of complaints.

    You will even find plenty of complaints on Lexus cars. No car is perfect.
  • carzzzcarzzz Posts: 282
    in general, all Camry got a "very smooth" ride (expt SE)!
    "very smooth" = mushy! Lacking road feels!
    Steering is also too soft, too light!

    All i think camry is better than accord is
    a rear center headrest
    "overstyled" rear-end looking, and smaller truck!
  • carzzzcarzzz Posts: 282
    "overstyled" rear-end looking, and smaller truck!

    I was talking about accord!
  • ian721ian721 Posts: 93
    I don't see any Accord on this list, CR's most reliable for 2004:

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/08/pf/autos/cr_auto_reliability/inde- x.htm

    The I4 Camry's #3 though, right after a Lexus and Acura.
  • talon95talon95 Posts: 1,110
    Not to worry... the Accord is still ranked better than average, and is still one of their top recommendations. And it still outranks the Camry in owner satisfaction.
  • It's probably 2nd or 3rd to Camry in the mid-size sedan class. CR evaluates cars "clinically" like they do appliances, a good reality check for brand-loyalists and enthusiasts. A good thing, imo.
  • Because just about ALL cars have improved considerably over the last decade or two, the "average" car is quite trouble-free now.

    Any vehicle rated above average, even if not WELL above average, is likely to be a very satisfying car to own.

    I've been doing quite a bit of car shopping with a friend during the past few weeks and I've seen plenty of $30K to $40K vehicles that aren't any better than (nor in some cases as good as) my '04 Accord EX-L sedan with its pre-tax price of under $23K.......Richard
Sign In or Register to comment.