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 vs Nissan Altima (V6 Models)



  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    that when I bought my 1986 Legend, the V6 put out 165 HP, which was more than the Ford 302 of that year, and the Legend seemd rather quick when compared to my 1983 Grand Marquis whose 302 put out 130 HP...

    Now the Accord 4 cyl puts out 190 HP, 25 more than my V6 of 1988...

    Shoot, the Honda Accord in 1997 had 170 horses, and that was before the new stricter SAE standards (so probably around 165). That's basically the same as my 2006 Accord with 166 (under the correct, new SAE standards) horses. What a difference 10 years makes, eh? :)
  • rdoctorrdoctor Posts: 1
    I have an '09 (not a typo) Camry V6 LE that I just got as a fleet vehicle as a replacement for a Grand Prix. We are on our 7th Honda as a personal vehicle (Pilot). The Camry is hush-puppy quiet. I like the power it makes as well, but it is more sensitive steering than I'd prefer. I've read some of you talking about the four cylinder engines benefits, but spend a thousand miles behind the Honda/Toyota/Nissan V6 and you have to apologize for using precious energy talking about sufficient power in the I-4. ;]

    If I had my pick, I'd probably buy a Nissan, just because I don't like the Accord tail end treatment. The Koreans are now designing Hondas??? It looks like a Hyundai. Otherwise, give me the Accord for all-around driving pleasure and feel.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Everyone must be out driving!
  • iwanthondaiwanthonda Posts: 13
    Well, I'm back from driving! Here are my two cents...

    I just picked up a 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navi a week ago, and I am loving it. Before my purchase, the comparison was between the highest trim levels of the Accord, Altima 3.5 SE, Camry SE V6, and Subaru Legacy GT Limited. Therefore, keep in mind that my comments are focused toward someone looking for a powerful and well-equipped vehicle.
    The Legacy is a very fun car to drive and has the added benefit of AWD, but it was quickly eliminated because of its smaller size and poor fuel economy (on a 4-cylinder Turbo no less!). If I were in a different life situation, I would highly consider this car, along with the fact that there are great deals to be had based on its low demand.
    In my opinion, the fully-loaded Camry SE V6 was the comparable trim level instead of the XLE V6 because of its sporty quality. When equipped as it was, the 2008 model had a similar MSRP to the Accord but in reality ran about $2k less based on the deals available at the time, since 2009 models were out. In terms of bang for your buck, I would say that the Camry comes out on top based on ridiculous markdowns, but obviously I went in a different direction for a reason. The reason being that the Camry SE V6, even as loaded as you could get it, did not satisfy enough of my luxury desires for a car in its class. If you compare simply to the XLE V6, you automatically lose out on dual zone auto HVAC, rear vents, smart-key, rear sunshade (both have no folding rear seat?!?). Of course the Accord isn't able to accomodate with all of these features, but it shines in many other ways. Overall, I also felt the Camry had a cheap "plasticky" feel to it, not to mention the turquoise back lighting (very embarrassing, IMHO). Had Toyota been able to create a vehicle that drives as well as the sportier SE V6 (6-speed AT with sport-shift also great), equipped it with the luxury features it deserves, and improved build quality to rival the Accord, I would probably be sitting in a different car right now. But alas, such a car does not exist, so on we go to the next candidate.
    The Altima 3.5 SE equipped with the Technology Package is probably the most complete rival to the Accord EX-L V6 with Navi, and I found that the OTD prices were about the same as the Accord. It is more powerful, more sporty, and ultimately more feature-laden than the Accord. However, that power and sportiness comes in the form of a CVT engine which tickles the delight of others, but simply frustrates me as someone who would prefer to be driving a manual tranny had I been in a different life situation. Additionally, the features may be there on paper, but I found that the Altima does not hold long-lasting appeal over its projected 10-12 year life. Sure, there is the birds-eye view (which does nothing for me, btw), XM NavTraffic, and a rear-view monitor with the Nav system, but it comes in a smaller 6.5" screen that looks like it was an added slide-in accessory to the center console. Besides, the Accord can be easily equipped with a genuine Honda-brand rear-view camera kit that is well-situated above the license plate (under cover from weather). To top it off, I test drove a demo car that belonged to one of the dealer's finance managers, having about 3,000 miles on it. As soon as I sat in the car, I was quite shocked to find that the car had aged in such a way that was very unflattering for the luxury level that it was supposed to have maintained. The wood grain looked much cheaper than it already did on a new car, and the fit and finish simply looked severely aged.
    In response to all the competition laid out above, I find that the Accord has sufficiently addressed most of the shortfalls found in the other vehicles. The build quality is excellent, and is unsurpassed by any of the competitors by far. The Navi, while the visual interface hasn't been updated in a few years, is still state-of-the-art, and its ease-of-use, functionality, and accessibility make it rise to the top yet again. As far as getting all the desired features, it is somewhat sad to say, but they are attainable pretty much just at the highest trim level. For example, the bluetooth and trip computers are terrific, but they will only accompany the Navi. I will admit that the V6 engine is not as well-rounded as its competitors in terms of capability and sportiness, but it still provides a very satisfying growl and can hold its own on the track when complimented by its excellent handling. On paper, I would say that the fuel economy is a wash, and obviously I have no ability to test all the vehicles with my specific driving situation. However, when compared to my previous car (1997 Audi A4 1.8T), I now am getting 18.5 MPG for about 250 miles driven in the Accord, as compared to 23-24 MPG in the A4. This should be expected, though, as my current commute is only 2.5 miles stop-and-go one way, and we're talking the difference between a small 4-cylinder engine and the larger Accord V6 in a situation where VCM cannot really provide its benefits. Speaking of VCM, I find no bothersome traits about this feature as has been documented by other reviewers, but I wouldn't mind if it was a casualty for improving to a 6-speed auto tranny with manual sport-shift. As far as aesthetics go, my opinion is that the re-designed car looks great now and will continue to look great years from now, and that my initial dissatisfaction with the rear was well satisfied by the addition of a subtle yet distinctive deck lid spoiler.

    So there's my detailed opinion in terms of what mattered to me. All in all, if I didn't have the extra $2k to spend, I would've gone for a fully-loaded Camry SE V6 and would have been satisfied with the value. But since my budget was accomodating, I decided to spend the extra $2k to get the Accord that more completely satisfied what I was looking for, and I was able to still keep it at $29k OTD (without accessories).
  • smarty666smarty666 Posts: 1,503
    Just to keep in mind when your deciding between the 09 Accord 09 Camry and 09 Altima is that the seats in the Hondas/Acura are not very good on your back; I have a severe back problem and a spinal fusion in my lumbar spine; I've found the seats in Honda/Acura vehicles to be too firm (both cloth and leather) and that they push in on my back too much; I've test drove an altima and camry and the seats were much more comfortable; just the right blend of softness and firmness; also, what honda does not tell you is the passenger side front heated seat on heat up on the bottom cushion, it does not heat the back cushion on the passenger seat; both the altima and camry heated seats heat both the butt and back cushion on BOTH the driver and front passenger seats making for a much more comfortable ride
  • mrbigjohnsonmrbigjohnson Posts: 1
    edited December 2010
    I agree. how can you even compare Camry with altima or Honda. I drove all camry models since 1986. (test drove to be precise. I would never own such a piece of horse crap myself). they all suck when it comes to handling. why would you even consider this car. Toyota got their "reliability" label in 80s and still live off of that. I would say 1992-1996 are the only Toyota Camry which had decent built quality in that time.

    if you want performance and great handling it's:
    1) honda. I would safely say they make the best front wheel drive handling cars over all. (prelude, civic, accord).
    2)nissans. 1993-2001 altima models were super cheap. great value. handled superb compare to toyota camry or corolla.
    3) Camry or corolla is basically a japanese equivalent for grand moms and other elderly people who never drove anything besides oldsmobiles. I would never ever even think about buying a toyota unless it's a supra or MR2.

    I am done with family sedans and now own honda prelude, BMW m3 and audi A4. I would say if you want comfort and performance go with Nissan Altima. it's the best value you can get among all 3. everything starting from interior is by far better than Toyota Camry. hondas are great but a little expensive. altima's V6 vq3.5 engine was on wards 10 best engines list for 10 years. latest 4 cylinder 2.5L engine still needs some time to gain confidence and respect.
  • Is there anyway to get a Zune HD media player to work the USB port of a JBL system so that you can control the playback from the audio controls? When connected, I get a 'USB error' on the display.

This discussion has been closed.