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

1818284868791

Comments

  • stlpike07stlpike07 Posts: 218
    It does look pretty cool. One dealer was trying soooooo hard to convince me to get an '07 Accord.....I wouldn't want to buy an '07 with the '08 coming out in less than one year.

    The front end looks similar to some volvo and jaguar concepts I've seen. I guess we'll see how it actually looks, or if it will look exactly like the pictures.
  • neteng101neteng101 Posts: 176
    Two things going for the '07... lease one now for a short time, and avoid the 1st year model of the '08. Buy one now, and keep it till the '08 gets its mid-model redesign... the '07 has the bugs ironed out and will be far more likely to be problem free. The '08 is a huge unknown.

    But yes I can see how its tempting to get the latest/greatest.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    One more thing... You'll be lucky to pay sticker for an 08 Accord at first. I'd wait until the 2009 for all the reasons you mentioned.

    I got a 2006, after the mid-cycle change. I got a fresh looking vehicle, but without the first-year troubles.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,434
    I am also a little leary about the '08. Reliability may be an issue. I am also quite certain they will make it swoopier at the expense of rear headroom. I think it will also be heavier and less efficient for the 4-cyl. They may tweak the transmission to get more mpg out of the 6 cyl to match Camry.

    While I like the Civic I was dissapointed at the reduction of mpg in the newest model (for the manual) despite all the claims about how the engine was more efficient. The taller geared automatic did get slightly better mpg.
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    It will be interesting to see what that sticker is, it's hard to imagine much less than the latest generation Camry & Altima, maybe even more. Loaded V6's can run 30K.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Accord's current sticker for the V6 with NAVI, when destination is included, is $29,995. Camries can easily top 31k.
  • kyrptokyrpto Posts: 216
    I've read C & D for over 30 years and they have frequently downplayed Toyotas. Usuaully its the "fun to drive" type deductions [very subjective] that hurt their passenger vehicles' ratings.
    And Car and Driver has been even unkinder to Toyota's trucks and SUVs. A definit bias.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I've read C & D for over 30 years and they have frequently downplayed Toyotas. Usuaully its the "fun to drive" type deductions [very subjective] that hurt their passenger vehicles' ratings.
    And Car and Driver has been even unkinder to Toyota's trucks and SUVs. A definit bias.


    Yeah, that's generally because Toyota's are as reliable as our 25 year old refridgerator, and about as exciting to use as well. Car and Driver is not biased against Toyota, just against boring-to-drive cars. Toyota gets kudos for having a better ride, but loses points in handling and in fun-to-drive sportiness, that Honda seems to provide more readily.

    If you'll notice, either C & D or Motor Trend (I subscribe to both, and they are pretty similar in their ratings) put the Camry in the top spot of under $30k Family Sporty Sedans (against Malibu SS, Galant Ralliart, and an Altima 3.5 Sport Model whose official trim level escapes me at the moment) - due to the new Camry SE V6 model that added some much needed spice to the Camry lineup that had been missing.

    Now, all they are lacking is a manual transmission, and a defeatable VSC system!
  • th83th83 Posts: 164
    "The Camry hasn't been on the Ten-Best list since...um... a little help here?"

    1997, the first year of the 4th-generation. Also, I think it was only the V6 models that made the list and not the grossly underpowered 4-banger models.

    "If you'll notice, either C & D or Motor Trend (I subscribe to both, and they are pretty similar in their ratings) put the Camry in the top spot of under $30k Family Sporty Sedans (against Malibu SS, Galant Ralliart, and an Altima 3.5 Sport Model whose official trim level escapes me at the moment) - due to the new Camry SE V6 model that added some much needed spice to the Camry lineup that had been missing."

    Motor Trend tested the new Camry SE V6 against the Galant Ralliart, Chevy Malibu SS, and Altima SE-R. All were automatics, even though the Altima SE-R is available with a 6-speed (a friend of mine has one, and it's a BEAST compared to my Accord). The Camry won because it offered the best total package (performance, refinement, comfort, value, etc.) of the bunch. IIRC, the Camry was also the fastest of the quartet with a 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds and quarter-mile ET of 14.6.

    I'm glad they didn't include an Accord in that test. It would've been smoked by all but the (relatively) sluggish Malibu SS.

    I like my 07 Accord V6 and all, but I have to admit it's far from swift, at least in typical daily driving where low-end and mid-range torque is crucial. Its little 3.0 just doesn't have enough grunt to move its mass around with ease at part-throttle. And though I haven't driven it yet, I'm sure the new Camry with its torquey V6 is much quicker on its feet than my AV6 (that's short for Accord V6, for those who don't know). I wish Honda would realize the importance of torque, not peak HP, in a family sedan. High peak HP is great for lightweight sports cars with close-ratio manual transmissions (like the S2000), but less than ideal for a hefty family sedan with an automatic tranny. Because of its high-end biased powerplant, the only time the Accord really shines in terms of acceleration is on the highway. There, it will rip to 100 mph and beyond (it's limited to 130) with absolute ease. But what good is that to the people who drive in this country, where the speed limits are 55-65 mph?

    Though my 07 Accord V6 is a huge improvement over my extremely sluggish 2002 Accord V6, it's still severely lacking in the low-end torque department. I wish I could've gotten an automatic Altima SE-R instead, mainly for its superior powertrain. Unfortunately, it was out of my price range and didn't even come standard with traction control or side curtain airbags, much less VSA (which wasn't even available), inexcusable for a $30k car. It did have HIDs, BOSE stereo, 18" wheels, and a few other convenience features the Accord lacks, but those weren't enough to justify the extra $3.5k+ a loaded SE-R costs over an Accord EX-L V6.

    Ah, well. Maybe when it's time to trade in my 07, the 8th generation Accord will have everything I want in a car (torquey V6 engine, HIDs, sportier handling, better stereo...).
  • for every bodys info,2003 v6 6speed coupe runs 0 to 60 in just 5.9sec and 14.5 seconds in quarter mile.and the regular v6 automatic accord is about second slower than 6speed coupe.you can look those number at www.modernracer.com .and remember this is 5 years old accord trim we are talking about.2008 accord is coming this fall.you can check the future concept at honda web site.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Honda read your mind. The new 08 accord v6 is a 3.5. They did the same w/ the pilot sized units by enlarging the 3.5 to 3.7. Curious re your 02 v6 experiences because I have one. What kind of city and highway mpg did you get and what were your observations about the car? Thanks.
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    Please tell us where you got your info. I wasn't aware any specifics (engine size, etc) had been released on the '08.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I can't. They will kill me! :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    for every bodys info,2003 v6 6speed coupe runs 0 to 60 in just 5.9sec and 14.5 seconds in quarter mile.and the regular v6 automatic accord is about second slower than 6speed coupe.you can look those number at www.modernracer.com .and remember this is 5 years old accord trim we are talking about.

    A current sedan 6-speed Accord runs the same exact speed, my friend, and its numbers were posted in a much more well-known magazine, Car and Driver.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Oh "THEY" will? I can't help but wonder who THEY are...:)
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    I've been thinking about this post & wanted to ask the other current generation Accord drivers to chime in.
    10 years ago I bought a '97 Maxima, standard 190hp V6, only had it a couple years but it seemed fairly quick. Haven't checked but assume my old Maxima was similar weight compared to current Accord, which has an increase of 50hp more.

    Do you other 6cyl guys & gals consider your cars sluggish as well?
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    dolfan1,

    My 2004 Accord V6 EX Coupe is completely responsive and has more power than I could ever need if I put the pedel to the metal. The 2003's through 2007's are the seventh generation Accords. Highly recommended.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    dolfan1

    03 EX V6. It is about as far from sluggish as Pluto is from Mercury. "drive by wire" means immediate response.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Maxima GLE V-6 (loaded model, which should be heaviest) weighed 3,085 lbs in the 1997 model.

    The Accord EX-V6, also the loaded model, weighs 3,371 in manual transmission form, and over 3,400 pounds in Automatic form. That's a difference of 300-400 pounds over the 1997 Maxima. Also, torque in the Accord is 211 lb-ft, only 6 more than the old Maxima.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The Nissan 4spd auto trans didn't help the quickness (1/4 mile 16.55).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Yep. That Maxima is great around town, (interestingly, a friend of mine has a 97 GXE with 180k miles or so that I've driven) with lots of torque, but today's cars will run away from it at higher speeds due to lower hp.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Sluggish? Compared to my 160mph motorcycle,well,yeah. But it's just a car. I drive my 02v6 very carefully and have never floored it. I luv the car and plan to keep it a long time.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I have no problem flooring my 03 V6. I do it every now and then (once or twice a month on average), when passing/merging. I think if you floor it every day, all day, it will shorten the life expectancy of your engine.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I'm sure you are right. I tow a small bass boat and am just trying to be as easy as I can, when I can. My car seems very throttle sensitive. I get better mileage by accelerating slowly.
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    Thanks, to all, for the responses. Technically mine was a black SE, very sharp and a darn nice vehicle in its day. Traded it in for a '99 Town & Country mivivan of all things! Needed something bigger, since I'm a one car family. Been driving the T & C ever since, and actually its been a fairly decent vehicle (except for a nasty habit of throwing the serpentine belt 4 times),but its getting older.
    That's why I'm interested in a new Accord. Still waiting just to see what the '08 will be but leaning towards an '07. At the prices they're going for it seems to good to pass up.
  • th83: I'm not sure what kind of "typical daily driving" you're doing to find the Accord V6's powertrain inadequate, but I'd like to find out. You admit its acceleration is fine for highway driving, so are you weaving in and out of street traffic fending off those annoying GTIs and WRXs? :) Yes it would be nice if a 4-year old Gen7 Accord matched the firepower of the new 2007 Camry, but personally I wasn't willing to pay close to the MSRP for the Camry SE V6 ($24,418), which is >$1000 more than the Accord SE V6 ($23,350), especially when the Accord can be had for under invoice these days--so that difference could total ~$4000 (I bought my 2007 Accord SE V6 for $20,500) since Toyota is not offering any incentives these days and Edmunds' TMV is very close to MSRP. I'd be paying up to $4K more for a Camry without VSC, and another $5K for a Camry with VSC (option package D)--and that's a VSC I can't even shut off when I want to! That would put a Camry V6 with VSC over $30K. I got my Accord V6 with on/off VSC for $10K less.

    With the VSC on the Camry XLE had a shabby slalom speed with its handling rated by Edmunds as only average (Accord's was good and it's slalom time much better w/o VSC). And I don't want to drive a car (most of the time) without VSC. Am I willing to trade $10,000 and on/off VSC for an extra 24hp and 37 lbs-foot @ <rpm? Easy answer: No way, Jose.
  • Dear members,

    I'm in the process of getting online quotes from Honda dealers here in the Houston area. I'm looking for a new 2007 Honda Accord SE 4 cylinder engine. I was quoted from one dealer for $19,200+TTL, fees, (I'm not exactly sure what they mean by fees, maybe destination charge).

    I was also told that it would include a free ResistAll exterior/interior sealant (a $695 value, or so they claim) :confuse:

    What do you all think?

    I greatly appreciate any feedback that I can get!

    Thanks,

    Josh :)
  • Great, tell them they can keep the sealant and subtract $700 from the price. Then maybe you'll have a decent deal. Check out the Prices Paid discussion on this website.
  • I agree. Spend $8 on two cans of scotchguard and do it yourself.
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    Destination Charge is not a fee. It is a non-negotiable freight charge that the manufacturer puts on the invoice for shipment of the vehicle from the plant or port-of-entry to the dealership.
Sign In or Register to comment.