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

1808183858691

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I fail to see your point, or how the fact that Honda has a high-performance model makes the Corolla cheap junky crap that won't take abuse. Until the recent Civic redesign, was outgunned by the Corolla XR-S, which had more horsepower and a 6-speed vs the old Civic Si. Now a new Corolla is coming out shortly.

    By the way, the old Toyota Corolla XR-S sedan runs 0-60 in 7.1* seconds, on regular gas, and gets 26/34 MPG (an Si takes Premium and gets 22/31, I believe). Not bad considering it is a soon-to-be-replaced five year old design, down about 30 horsepower to the Civic Si. (*MotorTrend.com) .4 seconds is the difference between quick and "slow as hell?" I disagree.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I think reliability and quality for Corolla and Civic are pretty much a wash. So for me it would come down to style preference and driving feel of each. The decision between Corolla and Civic comes down to personal taste.
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    Do you find the sound system adequate? IMO Honda needs to offer optional higher-end stereos. It seems getting the same sound system in a top loaded EX no better than the least equipped VP doesn't make much sense. Also, does your 03 also have 244hp? I suppose one could wait for the 08 upgrade, but as we've seen with Toyo, not even the best car companies are immune to first model year snafu's, which means playing it safe with an Accord would mean waiting for the 09 model.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    My V6 Accord (03) has 240hp (the power is goooood). It was a first year of the generation, and I have had no problems with it. They had a recall on the V6 auto trannys, but I have heard very little about problems with them since the recalls were done. I know my tranny has been flawless. I think the stereo is plenty adequate, but then I'm not exactly a stereo buff. I just listen to the music, I don't want to blow anyone away.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Just ignore the useless baseless comments instead of encouraging them. Conversation with a fence post would be more productive.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    IMO Honda needs to offer optional higher-end stereos. It seems getting the same sound system in a top loaded EX no better than the least equipped VP doesn't make much sense.

    I won't argue that an audio upgrade should be offered on, say EX models. But, the VP stereo and EX V6 6-speed have very different sound systems. Last I checked, this is how things were in Accords as far as stereos go:

    Accord VP - 2 Speaker CD Stereo

    Accord LX - 120 Watt 6 Speaker CD Stereo

    Accord LX-SE, EX, EX-L, and all Automatic V6 models - 120 Watt 6 Speaker 6-CD Changer

    Accord EX-V6 6-Speed Manual - 180 Watt 6-Speaker 6-CD Changer

    The VP has only the most basic components, and requires the buyer to purchase rear speakers (they are wired for adding speakers, so its easy and cheap to do).
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    Yes, quite correct. My error. At least as far as the VP is concerned. But the other models are essentially the same with a 120 watt amp & cd player. I didn't consider the EX with the 180 amp because it's only available in a manual shift (which, by the way, doesn't make a lot of sense either). I was really referring to fact that Toyo, for example, offers a base stereo similar to the Accord's but also offers a 440 watt upgrade. Went by the Honda dealer last night and walking by an Element I noticed a 270 watt stereo was offered in those. No big deal, really. One could always go and have a high end after market system installed. I was just commenting IMO Honda didn't offer enough sound system choices in the Accord line.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    What does the number of watts have to do with sound quality - especially when 10 honest watts is painfully loud in a car with typically efficient speakers?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    We had an Odyssey with an 80 watt stereo, and it ached to have better sound quality. Yeah, it would get plenty loud, but not without some distortion.

    More power (like the 200 watt Pioneer stereo I have installed in my 1996 Accord LX w/ only 4-speakers) allows the volume to be left lower while still experiencing clearer highs and a more powerful bass. Our Odyssey always sounded "tinny" unless you turned the treble WAY down, which then left CDs sounding like AM radio.

    My 1996 Accord still has the best stereo in my house, and this is up against dad's new 2007 Civic EX (160 watts, 6 speakers)and my 2006 EX Accord (120 watts, 6-speakers).
  • I laugh at those talking of zero to sixty in so many seconds in a Civic, or Camry. You don't buy these cars for speed do you unless you are hot rodding them? I am satisfied with my single CD changer, 2.4L 39mpg four banger and I don't care how long it takes me to reach 60! Now if I put a turbo charger on it and spent thousands on the engine and tranny, i would be interested in zero to sixty. I want a "bullet proof" vehicle that will last me many years without excessive maintenance. I have had great luck with a Civic and my present Camry. If you hadn't guessed by now, I am over 60 and it has taken me a long time to reach 60. I flew high performance aircraft and low performance but high utility helicopters in the Air Force and zero to sixty just isn't interesting. Sorry guys. Keep our service men and women in your prayers and pray for their safe return.
  • Have you made a decision on which car to purchase?

    I have also been following the rpm flare issue and even though we tentatively decided on an 07 XLE V6 we have delayed the actual purchase.

    I am not yet convinced that Toyota has solved the rpm flare issue. I've also been following the same topic in an ES350 forum where the steps involved in swapping a transmission have been posted. I do not want to put myself in a position where any of the local Toyota dealers may possibly need to perform that kind of work on my new car. Our current Camry has not been treated very well by any of the 3 local Toyota dealer service departments.

    My main concern with the Camry however has more to do with Toyota in general. I sense the same attitude of indifference towards customers, which prevailed in GM for many years, may also be developing within Toyota.

    We will make a car buying decision over the next week or two and it will most likely be an Accord EX-L V6.
  • ch3456ch3456 Posts: 4
    I hardly doubt Toyota will ever be struggling like GM is now. In fact, Toyota and Lexus are doing very well in sales. I imagine when all is said and done, Toyota will be tops.

    I'm a bit off topic though, so I'll hush now. :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Our current Camry has not been treated very well by any of the 3 local Toyota dealer service departments.

    Finding good techs, who actually know how to diagnose a problem, can be tough. My Honda dealer is nothing to write home about. But I have driven Accords since 91, and they have not spent much time at the dealer. If there were another Honda dealer within 65miles, I would definitely try them out. Good luck in your quest. :)
  • It's not so much about finding good techs to work on my Camry as it is about finding a Toyota service dept where I can leave my car for a day or two and have it returned without any damage.

    Routine repairs become more expensive when it is then necessary to take the car to a body shop for repairing the damage inflicted by either inconsiderate mechanics and / or car jockeys. At least there is consistency with the local Toyota dealers as they have all managed to alter the appearance of my car.

    I am now extremely hesitant to take my Camry to any of the local dealers for servicing because of these past events. The thought of potentially leaving a brand new car with any of them for transmission repairs is a level of stress I don't want to deal with.
  • mfletou1mfletou1 Posts: 508
    I had to decide between an Accord Hybrid and a Camry Hybrid. I ended up with the Camry for a lot of different reasons. I think even many Accord buyers would recognize than in their current forms, the Camry Hybrid makes a lot more sense. So with that in mind, I'll try to keep my comments more generic to Camry vs. Accord since I spent a lot of time with each (actually before I bought, I had spent a lot more time with the Accord than the Camry). This is why I prefer Camry:

    I always liked the Accord's styling, and still do. However, we are now in the last year of this body style. Knowing myself, I knew that when the 2008 Accord came out, I'd be forced to try to convince myself that the last gen body style I owned was nicer or just as good. And I also knew that deep down, I'd want the new one, but I couldn't afford it.

    My main problem with the Accord was the interior. I had a very hard time getting comfortable in the Accord as opposed to the Camry, which felt natural to me from the get go. I'm a tall thin guy and even with teh seat all the way back, the knee bend angle on the Accord was bothersome. And the steering wheel had relatively little clearance over my knees.

    In terms of ergonomics, I can't argue with the outstanding build quality and placement, but I felt the Camry interior looked a lot "fresher," particularly the gauges (speedo, etc). In terms of features, the Camry offered a few things that the Accord did not, namely bluetooth and a stereo system that was so far superior to the Accords they weren't even in the same league. I spend a LOT of time in my car so the stereo system is reasonably important to me.

    I liked the handling of the Accord plenty, but I did find the ride a little rough. I'm 26 so its not like I'm looking for a Buick, but to my surprise I did not find the Camry "floaty" at all.

    As I said, I spent a lot of time with the Accord, and was literally about ready to buy one. I decided to leave the dealership with my wife to talk things over and eat lunch, and on our way I said "what the hell, lets stop at Fitzgerald Toyota." Well, we never went back to the Honda dealer. The Camry looks great (yes, that's a matter of taste, but I thoroughly reject the claim that its ugly), felt great, and has a lot of room and features.

    My Camry is now 6 months and 11,900 miles old. I have no rattles, no shakes, nothing. I'm sure the same would have been true for the Accord. And yes, because its the Hybrid I get 36-40 mpg.

    I think there is a bit of a smear campaign going on with the new Camry in terms of hesitation and transmission. Both those issues have clear mechanical explanations, and they've been fixed. Hesitation is due to the adapative programming in the transmission, its an easy reprogram fix and its fine if it becomes an issue and the vehicles being sold now are fine.

    Now, with the hybrid and the CVT, I haven't had any of these problems, so I definitely encourage people to consider that model. For the same price as an XLE V6, you can have a loaded Hybrid with leather, nav, etc. I chose to just get a sunroof and paid about what I would have for an LE V6. I still get a fast car (7.3-7.7 seconds to 60), all those great features and great fuel economy. Honda simply doesn't offer that.
  • Excellent thorough review. Thanks for the same.

    A few points(and certainly not an attempt to smear Toyota)

    (1)I read quite a bit of the Lexus 300/330 thread because I was on the verge of buying a used Lexus. I drove a 2004 330 with 11,000 miles and a 2003 with 40,000 miles. On the 2004 I definitely felt hesitation and was quite surprised. On the 2003 I noticed rpm flare. I drove both care before I started going thru' the thread in edmunds. Agree that there might be some questionable posts in the thread but the size of the thread is staggering to say the least and even more staggering to me is that Toyota owners have been reporting problems from 2002 models onwards. It came as quite a shock to me that a company of the caliber of Toyota can have an engineering problem for more than 5 years.
    (2)Many many people have reported that the reprogramming is anything but easy. Toyota has come out with multiple "fixes" and none have really worked. If it really were that easy Toyota would have patched and fixed the problem long time ago. There were many folks that said(and I have to admit the argument is convincing) Toyota really screwed up with this entire adaptive programming concept and really has done a bad job 'fessing up.
    (3)Yesterday I read an article on moneycentral.com(maybe Jim Jubak but don't quote me on that) which said that Toyota is having so many quality problems that Japanese politicians have demanded an inquiry. I have not done any independent fact checking of the columnist's statement so please take his(and mine) statemenet with a pinch of salt.
    (4)The Lexus is a fine car but over the years I do like others believe that it looks more and more like a Camry(from the ext) which is great for Camry owners but not so much for Lexus owners.

    Good to know you are enjoying your car because ultimately thats what matters!
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    I'd never looked at the Accord SE until recently. I find it to be an exceptional value, if one doesn't require leather and a sun roof. But I also find myself wanting to wait and see what Honda does with the '08 model, which I'm sure will have the features that drew me to the '07 Camry = powerful V6, great mp3 friendly sound system, etc. I just don't trust the Camry because Toyota claims the problem was fixed with the first several models to roll off the line but do a little a research and you'll find that just isn't the case. It's not a matter of a smear campaign, the proof is out there. Yes, it's true thousands of Camry owners are happily driving their trouble free cars as we speak, but a potential buyer is rolling the dice on being one of the few unfortunate ones who get a problem car. The Accord seems like a great value while offering bulletproof reliability. After watching what happened with the Camry it makes me a little gun shy to take a chance on an '08 Honda or Camry, at least until the spring of '09 to see how early buyers' cars are performing. So I don't know what I want to do yet. Kind of in a holding pattern. If you get the EX-L, you know you're getting a great car with a proven track record. While it may not be as technically advanced as a new Altima or Camry or the next generation Accord, at least you'll know for sure what you've got.
  • np1908np1908 Posts: 39
    NA Car of the Year Announced.
    *
    Honda ?
    **
    Or Toyota?
    ***
    Nissan?
    ****
    Or Volkswagen Passat?
    ****
    *
    *
    NO !
    *
    *
    Wake up.
    *
    *
    Saturn AURA.
    *
    *
    Yes. It's Saturn Aura. The new midsize sedan from Saturn. It beats Camry, Accord, Passat & Altima included -- to be the NA Car of the Year 2007.
    *
    *
    Read more here.
    ----
  • neteng101neteng101 Posts: 176
    I think you might have found the wrong discussion. ;)

    The Aura isn't exactly cheap, you can't negotiate prices down on a Saturn and there's no economical 4-cylinder engine options on it.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Hi - welcome back!!

    Sounds like you are looking for our Saturn Aura discussion. See you there! :)
  • Who cares if "saturn" won north american car of the year, the accord is and continues be the best car in its class, and by the looks of the auras 4th place finish behind the 4yr old 1st place accord in car and driver further proves that point.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    A couple of things...

    Best car in its class is very VERY subjective (as evidenced by the millions of sales of cars OTHER than Accord). The Accord is the best car for you, and for me, but not for the person who wants the biggest trunk, or the softest ride, or the newest electronic features, etc... Car and Driver obviously shares similar values to you and I (Accord folks).

    Also, the Accord is a 5-year old design at this point.
  • The reason I say it's best in class is mainly the opinion of auto mag editors. 9 times out of 10 if the accord's in a comparison it's 1st no matter what its competing against.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    True, just remember that auto mags are generally enthusiast mags, which means they value handling, and performance, things that the Accord has geared towards the sporty crowd (where the Camry has always been softer and more plush). I drive a 4-cylinder Accord, so for me, it IS best-in-class, which is why I got the vehicle.

    My point was only that everyone has a personal opinion about "best-in-class," although it appears that the Accord takes home the awards in the enthusiast magazines more often than its competitors. (The V6 Accord has won the last two comparisons against Camry, Fusion, and Sonata done back in 2006, and more recently the I4 model has won the 6-car comparo, just for those who didn't know).
  • neteng101neteng101 Posts: 176
    We also have to remember that particular award is only given to a car that is all new or significantly differently from the previous year's model... thus the Accord was never even in the running for the award. It should be more appropriately named the North American New Car of the Year 2007 award. The Camry got beat though, since it is all new.
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Posts: 218
    Car and Driver disagrees with Motor Trend though. Camry was MT's "Car Of The Year," whereas in C & D it placed 5th and the Accord won.........interesting?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not really, since Car of the Year is limited to only BRAND NEW MODELS... the Accord in its fifth year beat a comparbly equipped Camry. The Accord was not allowed in the COTY testing. The Accord is STILL a Ten-Best for C&D, something is has been for over 20 years...

    The Camry hasn't been on the Ten-Best list since...um... a little help here?
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Posts: 218
    They should have tested the V6 SE Model.

    I test drove a couple accords, the accord coupe, the new civic and a few other cars before I purchased my new Camry. I liked the Camry better than the Accord. Obviously people will like the accord better.......I am happy with the Camry.

    It is more comfortable and I like the ride better. (In my opinion)
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Posts: 218
    Also, it will be interesting to see what the new Accord looks like.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    There are spy shots of the coupe circulating around here already. Check out the 2008 Accord forum for details.
Sign In or Register to comment.