Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

ezshift5 · September 2007

....But what does MotorTrend know about cars ?

very little, if you take their horrible articles as real journalism.

....reckon at this point M/T has a very thick skin.

Everyone has an opinion (no charge, it's for free)

It might prove interesting if you could point out - in your humble opinion - examples of 'real journalism'.........

..ez..

robertsmx · September 2007

Edmunds is worse. I stopped reading their road tests a long time ago. I think R&T is the best among mainstream automotive media.

mrgl · October 2007

What to Buy? I heard the 2007 & 2008 Camry has front axle problems?? So now I am looking at the Honda. Any feed back on this problem or why to look into the Honda would be appreciated.

kiawah · October 2007

Never heard of any front axle problems on a 2007+ Camry. I think you might have some bad info.

Cold transmission flare on a V6 6speed model, yes..... front axle problems, no.

bug4 · October 2007

Accord or Camry ..... that's a loaded question in this forum. Here is my $.02 (the length of this post might suggest I'm giving you $.04

) -- I think you can't go wrong!! Both cars are excellent for their price...but very different for a discerning driver. The engines/transmissions, while having similar ratings, have significantly different characteristics. In the 4cyl models (which it look like you are looking at), the Accord is higher revving (190HP model) and perhaps has better pick-up once your into the RPMs. The transmission is more sporty in the Accord and, IMHO, better able to read your right foot (I think the auto tranny in the Accord is the single biggest mechanical advantage that the Accord enjoys. . . and its a significant advantage). The Camry clearly has a smoother ride and is better insulated from the road. The Accord, more firm and sporty. Although I don't feel the Accord is "noisy," the Camry is decidedly quieter. The Camry feels more like a luxury touring sedan and the Accord more like a sport sedan (although neither actually get there when compared to the true benchmarks for luxury or sport - but consider the low price!!!).

Although some disagree, I feel the Camry has a little more bomb-proof interior feel. To me, it seems less luxurious, but perhaps a bit more durable. The interior look / design is so much different between the two cars, it is simply a matter of personal preference. The Accord's myriad of buttons and complicated look will turn some off. The Camry's ultra-sheik, minimalist look will turn some off. If considering a black Accord interior, I do think the aluminum-looking accents on the black Honda interior are awful! It looks good, but is a terrible effort at trying to look anything like brushed-aluminum.

On both the base levels and premium editions, I think the Camry stereo is significantly better than that in the Accord (especially the up-graded stereos).

The Accord has more contoured seats and impressive bolstering in the front buckets. But, they hold you relatively tightly and discourage much shifting around. It is somewhat uncomfortable to sit in the passenger seat of the Accord and angle your body toward the driver to talk. The seat wants you to sit straight ahead. The Camry's seats are much wider feeling and likely better for large people.

I never thought it was a selling point, but the steering wheel in the Honda is awesome (at least in the EX-L's)!! It has a smaller circumference, its thick and has perfect contours for a VERY sporty feel. In general, you can achieve a very impressive driver position in the Accord. The Camry is equally adjustable, but somehow is not able to achieve an equally aggressive position. It may simply be a matter of the bolstered seats and sporty wheel in the Accord???

With regard to the exterior, you just have to decide which style you like. Again, I don't think you can go wrong. If you are a wheel guy (I think it plays a BIG part in how a car looks), consider the wheel options between the Camry LE and Accord LX-P. The Accord's wheels are considerably more "styled" --whether for better or worse (Personally, I give a huge advantage to Honda in this regard). Consistent with the ride/handling characteristics, I think the Accord looks more sporty, particularly if you can afford a rear spoiler, while the Camry looks more classy. Subjectively, I think both cars fail in front-end design. The Camry looks like a clown with a big nose and the Accord looks like . . well . . like every other car on the road. I strongly dislike the cheap-looking black, plastic fins on the Accord's front grill. The Camry's painted grill is much better executed. I think Honda does a great job with their chrome assents. To my eye, the Accord looks more styled (not necessarily stylish) from the side and the Camry looks a bit "huge" from the side. I think both cars get kudos for their rear-end, tail-light design. I particularly like the broken C-pillar design on the Accord - very 5-series BMW-ish.

When selecting a car, don't forget color. Because the Honda looks sportier, in my opinion, it clearly wins the "looks" battle if you select colors and options that are sporty. Conversely, the Camry looks great in conservative and rich colors. Frankly, I feel the Camry has limited its audience by selecting such a conservative design. The Camry looks like a big touring sedan. In the same vein, perhaps the Accord has limited its appeal by looking more sporty. However, the Accord seems to be more adaptable. The light gold exterior with tan leather/cloth is a very rich looking car, whereas the silver with black leather interior is very sporty (particularly if you add a spoiler). The Camry can look very classy, but I'm not sure it does as good a job pulling off the sporty look. (Sure you can get the SE, but my personal opinion is that it looks like a draft horse with a racing saddle :P )

As I mentioned, I don't think you can go wrong. If you spend too much time trying to decide which car is "better," you'll go insane! They are both excellent! For me, it helped when I finally let go of weighing the technical specs of each car and started looking at what I like. For me, I picked an 08 EX-L Accord, silver exterior with black,leather interior. Because I was going for maximum sport, I added a rear full-size spoiler, which I would have omitted if I had bought a darker, more rich color. I absolutely love my Accord and have not had a single regret, even when a classy Camry pulls up beside me at the stop light!

thegraduate · October 2007

The Camry looks like a clown with a big nose and the Accord looks like . . well . . like every other car on the road. I strongly dislike the cheap-looking black, plastic fins on the Accord's front grill. The Camry's painted grill is much better executed. I think Honda does a great job with their chrome assents.

The less paint on the front end, the less available space to get rock-chips. I've learned this going from my 1996 Accord (with less painted front) to my 2006, which has more paint up front.

robertsmx · October 2007

The Camry's painted grill is much better executed.

I prefer the SE grill, which isn't painted. The all-painted grill has the look of a John Deere's/PT Cruiser nose. As thegrad noted, it also increases the chance of getting chips from flying debris, and if the paint starts to peel... like it has on couple of my friends' older Camrys but on bumper, it will look bad. I'm not sure Camry's grill is metal or plastic though, hard to tell from thinking about it because Camry doesn't have a front bumper. Will have to check it out next time. Metal will hold paint better.

moeharri · November 2007

FYI, the Camry's grille is entirely plastic--I change the LE grille on my car to the SE as I think it looks much better.

pochiraju · November 2007

hello all,

please can anyone help me let know about the noise levels in accord 2007 v4 vs camry 2007 v4 models. which one of these has less noise levels.

thanks,
sandy

thegraduate · November 2007

One little note, the engines are I4 (inline 4) not Vee engines. Just something to remember when asking about cars from a dealer, make sure they take you seriously!

And, if you drive them, I think you'll find a Camry quieter than the Honda.

blane · November 2007

Sandy,

Don't let yourself be sidetracked by Princess and The Pea concerns. With your radio on, you will never notice wind noise in either vehicle.

blufz1 · November 2007

Always buy the car you "like" best. You will tend to keep the car longer. The fewer cars you own in your lifetime the more bux you will have. Just my .02.

stlpike07 · November 2007

"The fewer cars you own in your lifetime the more bux you will have." Is that really true though? I guess it depends on what you call saving money.

I guess its buy or lease a new car and not have to pay for any repairs (covered under warranty) VS. buy a car and pay for repairs and services after the warranty expires. And, generally older cars have more problems that newer ones.

To eash his/her own..

blufz1 · November 2007

Absolutely true. A car is the 2nd largest purchase price item consumers buy,next to a home purchase.

thegraduate · November 2007

I guess its buy or lease a new car and not have to pay for any repairs (covered under warranty) VS. buy a car and pay for repairs and services after the warranty expires. And, generally older cars have more problems that newer ones.

Yes, but even an older car like my 12 year old, 176k mile Accord only costs about $400 a year to maintain/keep running practically perfectly. Compare that to a month for a car payment every MONTH!

blufz1 · November 2007

Good to see you on,grad. Hope school is going well. Really,when you think of all the money we spend on repeated car purchases over a lifetime it can exceed a one time purchase of a home.

stlpike07 · November 2007

Many people aren't as lucky with a 12 year old car.

I guess I just like to drive new cars for a few years and then get a new car. I like everything being under warranty and usually get bored with a car after a few years.

When I was younger I dropped about $4,500 into a 1992 Accord, and I only owned that car for about two years.

Whats the point of having money if you're not going to spend it...doesn't have to be on a car...and yes, planning for retirement is also important so thats where a lot of money goes too.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

When I was younger I dropped about $4,500 into a 1992 Accord, and I only owned that car for about two years.

Yes, one of my friends just had her 2001 TL w/ 65K miles head gasket replaced. She needs to pay from her own pocket b/c there's no warranty. :surprise:

robertsmx · November 2007

I don't have a 12 year old car, but do drive a 10 year old Accord now with 183K miles.

I considered replacing it four-five years ago with 100K miles on it. Then again around 150K with me "anticipating" repair expense on an old car. I figured, both times, that if there comes a time when I had to spend $300 or so on repairs every month, it would make sense to just buy a new car.

I did buy an '06 TL but the Accord still gets more than half of the miles I drive each month. If I drove about 1000-1200 miles and didn't take my cars on road trips, I could have done away without the TL and saved hundreds/month while doing so.

bug4 · November 2007

robertsmx -- perhaps it wont' be appropriate on this thread (but maybe on the TL v. Accord thread). I would be very interested to read a critical evaluation of your 06 TL. What do you like, what don't you like? The more critical (both good and bad), the better . . .

elroy5 · November 2007

The chances that a 10 year old car would need repairs that come close to the expense of a new car, are very slim. That would have to be a lemon like I have never seen. If the repair bills on your old car, would get to the point where buying a new car would be cost effective, that make and model (I hope) would be scratched from the list of new car choices. There comes a point and time when every car owner feels the need for a new car, but repair bills, and the warranty running out, are not usually the real reason for it. Many people will use it as an excuse though. My uncle is one of those people. He says "I never pay for repairs on my cars, because I trade them in as soon as the warranty runs out" trying to imply that he's somehow saving money that way. I don't think so.

stlpike07 · November 2007

I think your uncle, like me, just enjoys driving new cars and only wants to keep them for a few years. Some people do not like driving old cars and enjoy newer technology, including safety technology. Also, new engines and motors, suspension, stereo, etc.

robertsmx · November 2007

It would be unfair to compare my 98 Accord to 06 TL. But as far as TL goes, the biggest surprise has been fuel economy and handling. I was almost set to purchase TSX for those reasons but dont miss it at all. In fact, the TL gets me virtually identical mileage as the Accord. Both get me 25-26 mpg consistently in mixed driving (50-50). It is a different matter though that the Acura runs on premium. They both get me about the same mileage on highway too (32-33 mpg with an average speed between 70- 75 mph).

The engine is whisper quiet during cruising and low throttle driving and under low throttle driving. But at the same time, produces a nice refined growl when throttle is depressed that I could hear all day.

While the transmission is virtually seamless, I think Acura should go for a 6AT, with sport shift mode that affords greater control to the driver than the TL currently does. I would also like to see Acura being less aggressive with gearing around 40-45 mph. As it is now, if you drive only under 45 mph, you will never engage the top gear. A lower limit should be possible, and might help gain another mpg or two in real world (besides helping improve EPA ratings as well, since most of their tests involve speeds under 40 mph).

Although quiet for having sporty suspension, wide and low profile tires, it could use a little more noise insulation on old concrete surfaces. May be it is in the tires. I also think it is one of the best looking cars in sub-40K price class, with a fantastic interior design (being an engineer, I like industrial designs, and the nice aluminum/carbon-fiber trimming in my silver TL is just the kind I would design).

The ride may be a bit firm for a typical Lexus buyer (Acura did soften the base model a bit in 2007 and apparently it handles just as well. TL-S handles even better and rides more like my 06 TL). If I had to do it again, I will pick the TL, again. I am curious to see how much more Acura can actually improve the car over the 2004-2008 version.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

My uncle is one of those people. He says "I never pay for repairs on my cars, because I trade them in as soon as the warranty runs out" trying to imply that he's somehow saving money that way.

It's true if he's a wise consumer. I won't try to waste my time to explain to people who have different thinking PLUS if everyone buys new cars. The market for old cars will be bad. :P

elroy5 · November 2007

Please, explain this to me. :surprise: I'm looking for ways to save $$. Explain how buying a new car every 5 years costs less than buying a new one every 10 years. I'm on the edge of my seat here. I guess I'm not "wise" enough to figure this one out. :confuse:

thegraduate · November 2007

think your uncle, like me, just enjoys driving new cars and only wants to keep them for a few years. Some people do not like driving old cars and enjoy newer technology, including safety technology. Also, new engines and motors, suspension, stereo, etc.

Of Course! Nothing wrong with that. My dad gets bored with cars and changes every couple of years. (02 CR-V, 03 Accord, 05 Accord, 07 Civic - see a pattern?

)

For those who do their best to spend as little as possible, keeping an old car that costs, say, $200 every quarter at the most to keep running makes more financial sense.

blufz1 · November 2007

Camry or Accord, the longer you drive 'em the less they cost. Plus it's more fun trading every 10 years or so. Then the new car seems much more,well,"new".

gooddeal2 · November 2007

I don't say that it costs less but the number is very closed. The biggest misunderstanding with most people is that they think if they don't make any payments, their cars are not depreciated. The problem is a car is still depreciating at year 6 to 9, it's just at a lower rate. When a car is older than 10 years old, the depreciation is almost none but you're facing two problems now (1) how many more years can you keep this car running? (2) Repairs?

You've been here for a long time and you can do the math.

(1) If you trade in after about 5 years = 19.5K for a new 2008 Camry LE - trade in value for 2003 LE w/ 50K miles (10-11K?---edmunds = $10200) + 1 set of tires and brakes after 3rd or 4th year + minor repairs.

(2) If you trade in after about 10 years = 19.5K for a new 2008 Camry LE - trade in value for 1998 LE w/ 100K miles (3-4K?---edmunds = $3400) + 2 to 3 set of tires and brakes + minor repairs + possible major repairs b/c you have no warranty from year 6 to 10 (Hopefully it will be less than 1.5K that you save instead of trade it in after 5 years).

Actually, there' re people who are willing to pay ~1K just to extend the warranty to 7 years.

djm2 · November 2007

Hi All:
Friday,I had the opportunity to visit a Honda dealership. (A friend was dropping off his Civic for service,and I had the opportunity to look at some of the vehicles in the showroom.)
The 2008 Honda Accord is very nice, and it is a big improvement over the 2003 Honda Accord that I owned prior to my 2007 Camry. But, there is still a "Big Issue" with the comfort of the seats. The seats seem to be higher than the 2003, but they are VERY HARD compared to the Camry. (The 2008 Accord had cloth seats, and my Camry has leather). I like the new Accord, and I would consider purchasing one in 2010, if Honda would make softer seats. I spend a lot of time in a vehicle and I need comfort! I do not want "road feel" on my bottom!
Something very interesting is happening with Honda dealers in Northern New Jersey. They are no longer doing New Jersey inspection. (Too many problems with the State!) My friend had to take his Civic to a service station in town for the inspection, and then have his vehicle serviced at the dealer for specific Honda issues! (He would not use "state run inspection stations" because he feels that they abuse vehicles in the inspection process.)
Best regards to everyone. ------ Dwayne :shades:

robertsmx · November 2007

The preference for seats seems to be the same as it is for mattress. Some like it firm (me), and you like it soft. I can take soft for short rides and all, but it seems to have an adverse effect during long/spirited drives.

That said, sometimes cloth versus leather can also make a difference. The leather seats in my 1998 Accord have a softer feel to them compared to cloth trimmed seats in Accords from the same year.

The seats in my TL are firmer than the Accord's, and I love it. It adds to sportiness (check out any sports/performance car, they will have firmer seats).

robertsmx · November 2007

Not even Accord/Camry are expected to hold half of their original price after five years, and more so at trade-in. I would say, $8.5K (which would be right around 5-year residual per ALG). So, on the first car, the buyer spends $13K (taxes not to be left out). And again, after another five years. Total cost: $26K.

For another buyer who decided to go 10-years, and manages to sell the car for $2.5K, the cost would be $19K. We're looking at $7K in savings.

Compared to replacements at 50K miles, 100K miles will basically add another set of tires, batteries, potentially bulbs potentially brakes (original front brakes in my 1998 Accord lasted 90K miles, and rear brake pads were replaced at 132K miles, and at 183K miles, those were the only brake pad replacements I have had to make). No modern car should demand $6K-7K in repairs between 50-60K miles, much less the cars that set the benchmark in durability.

BTW, one of the reasons I can afford to have two cars in my garage (06 TL w/30K miles, 98 Accord w/183K miles) is that it has cost next to nothing in maintenance which wouldn't have been possible if I were still making payments on it. The insurance cost goes down too.

elroy5 · November 2007

Although $19, 500 is way too low for a Camry LE, I will go with that number. So I am to believe that the $19,500 price of a second new car in a ten year period will be covered by the depreciation and repair costs between year 6 and 10. Those depreciation and repair costs would have to be $325/month. That's one heck of a lemon. Sure glad I didn't buy an 08 Camry LE. :surprise:

Nice try, but the numbers don't add up.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

8.5K for a 2003 Camry LE? I think it's a bit too low. I just posted for an auction # and see what people can get at trade in.

Tax? We only pay tax on the diff. in most states. So, 19.5K - 8.5K = 11K + 6% tax = $11,660 (not 13K).

90K to replace brakes? You're lucky. I replaced my Avalon brakes at 38K miles, Corolla at 40K miles, Camry at 45K miles, and G35 re-surface rotor at 10K miles. I like to change my tires sooner even if it' in o.k condition b/c I live in the Northeast.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

Although $19, 500 is way too low for a Camry LE

Well, invoice for '08 LE = ~19.5K - 500 cash = ~19K

I don't add tax here b/c we have diff. tax rate, tax credit on trade or no tax at all.

Nice try, but the numbers don't add up.

Show me your number...the only thing you can disagree w/ me is the trade in value which I'm waiting for the auction number.

robertsmx · November 2007

Show me your number...the only thing you can disagree w/ me is the trade in value

About $800. This includes timing belt/water pump, front brake pads, battery and a headlamp may have been replaced ($12). In fact, with 183K miles now, it has had only one repair... a cracked radiator hose. That happened around 152K miles or so.

If someone buys a new car, for that span, the cost would be several times over (and $800 may actually be equal to taxes paid).

And we're assuming the person doesn't finance, but buys on cash. Otherwise don't forget to add interest.

One of the appeals of buying an Accord or Camry is that you don't have to consider replacing it after 50K miles from fear of repairs. In fact, that was something I told the finance guy when picking up my Accord ten years ago. He was trying to sell extended warranty... told him, if I felt the need for it, I wouldn't be buying a Honda. Saved a grand in the process.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

Again, I've never said it's cheaper to trade in cars more often but the # can be closed b/t 5 years and 10 years. However, you will SAVE a lot of $$ when it passes 10 years mark because you pay almost 0 depreciation.

elroy5 · November 2007

Show me your number...the only thing you can disagree w/ me is the trade in value which I'm waiting for the auction number.

The numbers were there. Pretty simple. Depreciation and repair/maintenance costs between year 5 and 10 would have to equal the price of the new car. That's $325/month or $4,000/year, however you want to put it. Cars do not depreciate much between years 6 and 10, like you mentioned, and tires, brakes, and batteries are going to wear just as quickly on a 5 year old car, as they will on a 10 year old car, so they don't count.

My point is depreciation, repair, and the few extra maintenance items between year 6 and 10 will probably not equal $4000 (and that would be remarkably high). So that leaves you with $15,000 of extra costs for the new car. And that is extremely conservative. Not even close.

Just say you want a new car every 5 years, because you want a new car every 5 years. Saying it is cost effective is poppycock, if you'll pardon my French.

gooddeal2 · November 2007

Well, I just got the trade in # and yes, it's 10-11K for the '03 Camry LE.

link title

So, here is my number again and I also assume that you have $0 repairs from year 6 to 10.

(1) If you trade in after about 5 years = 19.5K - 10-11K trade + 6% Tax = $9K to $10K ( x 2 = 18 to 20K)

(2) If you trade in after about 10 years = 19.5K - 3-4K trade + 6% tax = 15 to 16.5K

I rather pay an xtra $300 /year to drive a new car.

blufz1 · November 2007

You left the time value of money out of your computations.

elroy5 · November 2007

I rather pay an xtra $300 /year to drive a new car.

You can twist the numbers all you want, but it's going to cost you a lot more than $300/year. Closer to $300/month actually. Believe what you want.

pat · November 2007

People buy new cars whenever they want and for whatever reasons they want - it's their call and it matters not if others agree with their reasoning. So let's get back to comparing the actual subject cars, 'kay?

mackabee · November 2007

Is actually $19998.00 with cargo/floor mats, cargo net and first aid kit. About $60 dollars less with the cargo/floor mats only.
Mack

robertsmx · November 2007

I wonder if the first aid kit comes with 5 year warranty. :P

It is fine to have all-weather mats as an option but about time automakers included floor mats as a part of the car. Honda started doing that in $20K and up cars several years ago.

bug4 · November 2007

Honda did start including the mats with the price of the car -- but as soon as they did, the quality of the mats decreased! Robertsmx --Have you compared your 98 mats (which were not included) to the mats in the 08s? I give my new 08 mats about 1-2 years, at most, of useable service. I liked when they weren't included and they were better quality. Plus, when I bought my 98 Accord new, I flat out told the salesman that it was not acceptable that the car didn't come with mats and that the dealership would either throw in the mats for free, or I would walk away from the deal -and I would have. I got the mats. I took care of them and they lasted for 10 years.

robertsmx · November 2007

I can't imagine the mats being any worse than the ones I had to purchase (well, "thrown in"). But I really like the mats that came in the TL (of course, it isn't a mainstreamer). Will have to "look" for standard mats in the newer Accords to draw a conclusion though.

kiawah · November 2007

First thing I do with a new car is buy a set of WeatherTech mats, take out the factory mats and save them for when I get rid of the vehicle.

viet · November 2007

Kennyq5,

I do. A wife told her husband his car is his Queen and she is only his free maid.

badtranny · February 2008

I like the styling of the Accord over the Camry. The reason I don't have a new Camry in my driveway is that I have no real, dependable numbers to work with, the dealers in this part of the Northeast don't advertise much anymore..

Plus, they are all loading the cars with mats, etched glass, and hefty Conveyance fees....

But,, getting back to the topic,, If we look at an Accord Lx/p? versus a Camry LE,, which is the better bargain, and/or vehicle overall??

nvbanker · March 2008

In my opinion - the Honda is probably marginally better, or the best. However, the Camry is damn good, and the major difference between the two, is the Honda is sportier. The Honda is tighter handling, tighter fitting, and has a much sportier feel to it than the Camry. The Camry is more open, more relaxed in the feel, steers easier, rides smoother and feels a little more "boulevard" than the Honda. So, it's mostly a matter of preference, either the looks, or the feel. I personally prefer then Camry over the Accord, for all the reasons above - I'm beyond sporty at this age. However, if you don't want to be mistaken for someone who drives a Crown Victoria, the Honda may be more to your liking. Best of luck. :shades:

badtranny · March 2008

WAIT A MINUTE!!!! I would love a new Crown Vic!!!

If I didn't dislike Ford Motors, and their scummy dealers I would probably have one..

But, I know what you mean about the cars.. But, why would Honday produce a car that has flickering headlights with the AC on???

And, why would Toyota allow its Camry to be confused as to when to go into overdrive?? Neither manufacture wants to admit they have some engineering flops on their hands.... I don't know. First I was with the Camry, then I checked out the Accord,,, Looks better to me, but after reading the reviews about city mileage and the flickering lights,, I may go for the Camry..

Regards and thanks.

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles