Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

billatthebeach · November 2006

We bought a 2007 Toyota Camry LE automatic, 4-cylinder in March 2006, and traded it in for a 2007 Honda Accord SE automatic, 6-cylinder in November 2006. The Camry had characteristics that were not acceptable, the hesitation problem and poor visibility the main reasons for the trade. Here are the pros and cons of each car, a Camry-to-Accord comparison sort of, even though weve only had the Accord for a few days:

Camry
pros--
* smooth ride
* comfortable front seats
* adequate mountain climbing power for a 4-cylinder
* very quiet inside
* looks elegant (although ugly)
* large opening through trunk into rear seats
* strong headlights
* instantly effective smooth brakes
cons--
* occasionally hesitated during acceleration attempts for a few seconds
* cant see right front corner of car due to hood shape
* weak air conditioner
* occasionally suddenly wanders to side at highway speeds
* outside temperature gauge inaccurate
* steering wheel oscillates "rotationally" over bumps (like a Farmall), a slight minor lessening of control
* disappointing gas mileage, 22 mpg in the city with a 4-cylinder driving very conservatively
* large front window posts, hiding an entire fairly close car on the right side
* loosey-goosey steering
* low quality radio
* dash panel suddenly changes intensity, some annoying automatic thing
* hoaky-looking dash
* looks ugly (although elegant)
* motor not as smooth-sounding as old Toyota engines sound
* poor rear visibility
* manual says to go to dealer to keep from beeping when remotely opening doors
* single-CD player
* front head rest pushes head forward very uncomfortably
* front doors swing so far open its hard to reach them to close
* infrequently took a few tries to start motor
* infrequent rattle somewhere near front passengers seat

Accord
pros--
* handles well, easy to drive and park
* nice looking dash
* good rear visibility
* smooth, powerful engine with good torque feel at all speeds
* tighter, safer steering control
* nice sounding radio
* 6-CD player
* nice looking (but plain looking)
cons--
* uncomfortable front seats
* wider turning circle
* brakes slightly less responsive
* seats and some interior kind of cheap looking
* small opening through trunk into rear seats
* plain looking (but nice looking)
* a little rough ride, but made that way on purpose

Hope this helps. The Accord's a great car so far. I'm not rich and would only trade off a fairly new car and lose a ton of money if it seemed necessary.
Aaron.

ahsanman99 · November 2006

corolla is slow as as hell.It wont take hour of abuse.the beauty of vtech is you can abuse it every day and it still go to half million mile without breaking.the best selling car in 2001 was honda accord well over 420000.let say i agree with your 14% camry fleet,this means if camry sell 400000 a year,56000 of them go to fleet,because camry and corolla are cheap junky crap.accord always sell well over 3500000 every year without selling to rental companies.you pobably find accord for rent in florida or las vegas at exotic car rentals for $100 a day and you can only put 100 miles on it.

ahsanman99 · November 2006

manual 6 speed coupe is 5.9 sec 0to 60.look at www.modern racer.com or caranddriver.com.I guarantee you if you go and drive2003-2007 honda accord 244hp v6 coupe 6speed,you will find a diference.any car in toyota dont have a chance against that accord.

thegraduate · November 2006

corolla is slow as as hell.It wont take hour of abuse.the beauty of vtech is you can abuse it every day and it still go to half million mile without breaking.

The Corolla has VVt-i, which is Toyota speak for Variable Valve Timing, too. When the Corolla came out in late 2002, it was faster than its compeitors (Civic included), with a 0-60 time under 8 seconds. Back then it had about 15 more horsepower than a Civic LX. Keep in mind, this is the fifth year of the Corolla, and like the 2005 Civic, it is due for a revamp.

Keep in mind the Corolla is the longest running nameplate in American car sales history (over 40 years I think), and the Corolla is known for reliability because of its continuing track record for being reliable. Many MANY people put hundreds of thousands of miles on their Corollas, many driving them over 20 years.

I'm not a Corolla fan, I personally find the driving position all wrong for me (but I'm an abnormally tall guy to be driving a compact). I CAN say, from much experience driving a 2004 Corolla LE, that they aren't really any slower than a Civic ( .2 seconds to 60 MPH is not a difference most buyers would EVER notice, and it is still under 8 seconds to 60 MPH, which is darn quick considering it often gets well over 40 MPG), and most people have found they will run until doomsday.

camry and corolla are cheap junky crap

That's an awfully broad, useless statement. Care to elaborate on how they are cheap, junk, and crap? What parts of the vehicles make you say this?

dolfan1 · December 2006

For months I had my heart set on a 07 Camry SE V6, but held off watching the tranny problem to see how it worked out. Followed the Camry threads for awhile. Toyo claims problem was solved after the first few dozen rolled off the line. But now more than 9 months & thousands of cars later, new buyers are continuing to experience the tranny issue. Not all of course, not even the vast majority, but it's apparent a new buyer is still rolling the dice. It's enough of a risk to scare me off. Now considering the Accord SE V6. I like the fact you can get a V6 w/o a sunroof, a situation probably difficult to find in a fairly loaded Camry. I was looking forward to the high-end stereo and bluetooth, but suppose I can live w/o it. I know the Honda will provide years of reliable service, the highest attribute on my list of priorities. From what I've read the main complaint with the Accord is road noise. Is it really that bad?

elroy5 · December 2006

The road noise is only noticeable on the roughest pavement. On a smooth highway you can't beat the solid feel you get from the Accord suspension. The longer you drive it, the more you like it. I find the V6 Accords ride a little smoother than the I4s because of the extra weight. I have an 03 EX V6, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

thegraduate · December 2006

I find the V6 Accords ride a little smoother than the I4s because of the extra weight.

That would have been true on your 2003 model (which had 16" wheels just like the 4-cyl), but now, the V6s ride rougher because of their lower-profile tires with larger 17 inch wheels.

On dolfan's question; the road noise on the Accord is not excessive, although it is not quietest in class. Go drive it, and see how it suits you.

dudleyr · December 2006

If the V-6's ride smoother, then the I4's are more nimble because of their lighter weight and better balance.

thegraduate · December 2006

This is true, although only a marginal difference is noticeable.

ahsanman99 · December 2006

civic SI runs 0 to 60 in 6.7 seconds.now there will be mugen civic next year.for your info do some research on civic history.

thegraduate · December 2006

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.

elroy5 · December 2006

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.

dolfan1 · December 2006

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.

elroy5 · December 2006

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.

moparbad · December 2006

Just ignore the useless baseless comments instead of encouraging them. Conversation with a fence post would be more productive.

thegraduate · December 2006

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).

dolfan1 · December 2006

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.

dudleyr · December 2006

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?

thegraduate · December 2006

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).

jollygreen1 · December 2006

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.

vince_lmt · December 2006

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.

ch3456 · December 2006

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.

elroy5 · December 2006

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.

vince_lmt · January 2007

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.

mfletou1 · January 2007

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.

calmnik · January 2007

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!

dolfan1 · January 2007

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.

np1908 · January 2007

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.
----

neteng101 · January 2007

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.

pat · January 2007

Hi - welcome back!!

Sounds like you are looking for our Saturn Aura discussion. See you there!

ldawson · January 2007

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.

thegraduate · January 2007

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.

ldawson · January 2007

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.

thegraduate · January 2007

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).

neteng101 · January 2007

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.

stlpike07 · January 2007

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?

thegraduate · January 2007

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?

stlpike07 · January 2007

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)

stlpike07 · January 2007

Also, it will be interesting to see what the new Accord looks like.

thegraduate · January 2007

There are spy shots of the coupe circulating around here already. Check out the 2008 Accord forum for details.

stlpike07 · January 2007

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.

neteng101 · January 2007

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.

thegraduate · January 2007

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.

dudleyr · January 2007

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.

dolfan1 · January 2007

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.

thegraduate · January 2007

The Accord's current sticker for the V6 with NAVI, when destination is included, is $29,995. Camries can easily top 31k.

kyrpto · February 2007

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.

thegraduate · February 2007

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!

th83 · February 2007

"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...).

ahsanman99 · February 2007

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.

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles