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. Volkswagen Passat



  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    I feel the Camry will be the one to fall from grace in the coming years. the Camry is way underpowerd and not a drivers car... With its standard 137HP 4cyl its a joke. Heck, even the Taurus comes with a 155HP V6 standard! The Accord will top the Camry in the next 2 years, is my prediction. I feel Toyota sells more Camry because Toyota has more dealers.. Its only a matter of time... Right now sales numbers are neck and neck. I lost the link showing sales figures... The Camry was ahead in sales by under 5K units...
  • cesiumcesium Posts: 5
    I am for sure wanting to purchase a 2000 Honda Accord EX, and I just wanted to know what's the lowest price I could get for it. I want it in Dark Emerald Pearlcoat w/ and Ivory interior and automatic transmission, and I just wanted to know how much I could get for that. I'm also open for suggestions on another car.
  • nakks1nakks1 Posts: 1
    I have honda accord. If like to buy any other brand after I trade in, what should be the area of study I should do .
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    After couple of years on top of sales chart, Accord gave up to Taurus. Then Taurus led for a good few years before it gave up its rank to Camry. Its a cycle that would depend on more factors than one... dealerships, discounts, fleet sales, and so on.
  • liufeiliufei Posts: 201
    Still, to be able to say the "#1 best selling Car" surely must do a lot thing to the marketing department.
  • thicks23thicks23 Posts: 42
    I'm not sure but the last time I checked Ford was selling almost 20% of it's Taurus' to fleets, Toyota was selling 10% of it's Camrys and Honda only 4% of it's Accords. That was a couple of years ago but if those figures still stand it brings the Accord to within about 7,700 units of the Camry and about 17,000 units ahead of the Taurus in private sales. I am not positive since Honda made it's Accord so much roomier and as a result could have increased it's fleet sales percentage.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Fleet sales seem to hurt automakers in some ways... residual is affected, and profit margine goes down as well. It is not uncommon to find a well equipped '99 Camry sitting on used car lot with extremely low price tag. A friend of mine got a '99 Camry LE with 12.5K miles for $14K! Why buy a new Camry?
    If a dealer's used car lot has two Camrys, similarly equipped and similar mileage, and price difference is noticeable, it is quite possible that the lower priced Camry just came off a fleet. Not sure about it, but lot of people I know don't seem to prefer cars returning from a fleet. An individual often takes care of his/her car better than somebody renting one for couple of days, be it the way it is used, maintained, or even fed (grade of gasoline).
    Honda's financial report (1998 perhaps) mentioned that Honda wants to keep fleet sales to under 2%. The 1999 financial report also mentions that Accord continues to be the best selling car to 'individuals' in America.

    liufei makes a good point from marketing stand point. Honda too could make its theme "best selling car to individuals in America for x number of years in a row". That could help them get some waitlisting on Accord LX too, like it helps Toyota sell Camrys.
  • hprathaphprathap Posts: 1
    I got my Accord in the Bay area. Bought a 99 Accord in 98. It has done only 18K miles. It was smooth and good and no noise. I used 87 Octane and now I use 92 Octane. I find the engine screams than many other similar cars is it normal??
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Not sure what you're talking about, but after a cold start, the engine is more noticeable, but as it warms up, it cannot be heard except when accelerating. My '98 Accord has 47K miles on it, smoother than ever.
    BTW, using 92 octane over 87 (or 88 in Bay Area I guess?) is simply a waste of money on either I-4 or V6 Accord. The engines are designed to use 86+ octane and do not require premium fuel. the only time I've used anything better than 87 is in Arizona/Utah/Colorado where it might be difficult to get 87.
  • carbuff21carbuff21 Posts: 1
    Who wants to drive the #1 selling car in its class. When I pull up to the light and see 2-3 other 1997-2000 Camry's next to me, I thank GOD that I did not purchase one. I have a 10 year old Honda Accord(115,000 miles) and it has been really good to me. The paint is fading, but I got an estimate to paint and it was $350. I have one major repair a year less than $1000, but it beats a $400 car note.
  • thicks23thicks23 Posts: 42
    I strongly agree with you. It almost makes me sick to see all of those Camrys on the road and I wouldn't have one either. Up until I recently bought a '00 TL I drove (and still own) a '91 Legend with 115,000 miles and it is still great transportation. Even with faded paint and a ragged out interior I'd rather have my old Legend than a Camry.
  • sbgat23sbgat23 Posts: 5
    I was really interested in your posting. I own a 1990 Acura Legend with 125,000 miles on it. I am keeping the car but also buying a new car. I am torn at the moment between 3 different cars. I like the Toyota Camry XLE V-6 and the Honda Accord EX V-6. But I also am partial to the Acura TL because the 1990 Legend is the best car I have ever owned. It runs great and has given me no real trouble in the 10 years I've owned it. I would love to know what your thoughts on this are as I am sure you went through the same mind games I'm going through. Although it is not as fancy, isn't the Honda Accord EX pretty damn similar to the Acura TL for about $6000 less?
    Thanks for your input.
  • thicks23thicks23 Posts: 42
    I'm glad to help in any way possible. I too am partial to Honda products and understand what your going through. The Camry XLE V-6 is a great car and really the main thing I have against it besides it's styling is the fact that to me it isn't worth the amount it costs over the Accord EX V-6. Don't get me wrong, it is a smooth, powerful and very refined car that will be extremely reliable. It's just that when you option it out, the price increases enough to make you wonder if you should buy an ES300, I30 or TL instead. The Accord EX V-6 is very similar to the TL and pretty much the only reasons I didn't buy the Accord is because it isn't available with the Nav system and there is something about the Acura name that I like. I know that sounds stupid but I geek out on electronics and after driving an Acura for years I'm used to the distinction between Honda and Acura as far as one being family oriented and one being a luxury car. If I didn't care about the Nav system or the name I would be driving an Accord right now. Based on my experience with the two cars I have to say they ride very similar with the TL feeling a little more solid over bumps and expansion joints. Their handling is also very close and in acceleration there isn't much difference at all (maybe 0.5 seconds to 60). The TL's interior IMHO is a little more upscale-looking although they both have leather on the seating surfaces only. Styling-wise they look alike in some aspects with both being conservative yet attractive. I agree that the Accord and TL are a little too alike for there to be about a $6000 (TMV) difference and it almost doesn't seem worth spending extra on the TL. IMO it probably isn't seeing that both ride on the same platform and the difference in the TMV is more than what the extra features are worth. The Accord has pretty much all that you need: automatic climate control, steering wheel radio controls, moonroof, leather, homelink, you name it. I don't want to seem like I'm telling you what car to buy so please strongly consider the posts of others as well considering this is just my opinion. I hope I helped in some way. I look forward to seeing which car you end up with.

  • sbgat23sbgat23 Posts: 5
    Thanks for the advise. Your opinions are similar to mine. I think the Camry XLE is a neat well appointed car but the price seems higher than it should be. The Accord EX V-6 is I think a little less well appointed but the cost differential is substantial. Maybe that's because I remember the line "good reliable transportation for under $2000". Of course that was selling the Ford Pinto and it was a great line if not a great car! As for Acura, I obviously am partial to it given my experience with my Legend but the close to $6000 differential over the Accord just doesn't seem justifiable unless the car is substantially better that the Accord. Admittedly it is a little plusher than the Accord and the name denotes quality/luxury as the Honda name cannot; also it may be a little quieter than the Accord.
    Since you drive a TL I have two questions. Are the seats more comfortable, better support, etc. in the TL and is there less road noise, wind noise? Both seat comfort and noise seem to be a recurring theme on these postings and I am use to good seats and low noise in my Legend -- except when the sunroof is open, then all bets are off.
    Thanks again. Please feel free to respond on the bulletin board or e-mail at
  • thicks23thicks23 Posts: 42
    I'm glad that I have been of some assistance to your buying experience.(:
    Indeed there is a small difference in the seats of the Accord and TL. First of all the TL has a softer bottom cushion in the front seats than the Accord so that I sink in a little more when I get in. This extra cushiness IMO makes the seats a little more comfortable - yet still pretty supportive- than the Accord's. Secondly, the TL hits my lower back a bit different in the lumbar area. The lumbar area in the TL must be a little higher than the Accord's because I have heard a few complaints about the TL's seats hitting some people in the back in an uncomfortable way. It probably hits them too high because it is not natural to have lumbar support in the middle of your back rather than the lower back where it is supposed to provide support. I'm 6'2" with a long torso and the TL's seats are very comfortable to me. In fact the only car in this class that seems to hit my back awkwardly is the '00 Passat. I drove my mom's around her neighborhood the last time I visited her and came back with my back hurting. The Passat's seats hit my back too hard and high up even with the lumbar support at it's lowest setting.
    As far as interior noise, the Accord is slightly louder at highway speeds than the TL. Wind noise is about the same but the difference is in the road noise and engine noise. The Accord isn't quite as isolated from the road as you would expect especially compared to a Camry. The TL is a couple of decibels quieter (about the same as the Camry) at highway speeds due to the tall 5th gear and a slightly stiffer chassis. Around town, though, the difference is less noticeable. To me, the difference is still too small to justify $6000 more for the TL.
    If you drive a long way each day on the highway (which I kind of doubt seeing as you only have 125,000 miles on your Legend) then IMO you would probably be more comfortable in a TL. If you drive around town more often than on the highway I think you would be just as satisfied with the Accord.
    I hope I have answered your questions and feel free to ask more if you need to.
  • kc_flynnkc_flynn Posts: 45
    Both the Camrys and Accords have great looking cars that run great. My biggest beef with Toyota is with body rot. They don't make a good body to the car. Toyotas rust easily. I have had two Toyotas and both of them got rusty, particularly my Camry around the the wheels. We've also had Honda Accords, treated them the same way, in the same weather conditions, and there wasn't a speck of rust on them.

    Having owned both, the Accord is a better car. Great reliability, solidly built, bigger, and a peppier engine.
  • The TL is a "luxurified Accord" its performance, comfort, amenities, features and luxury are modified the warranty and service are on a higher level. If you have the extra cash, definitely go for the TL. I forgot where I heard it from, but most of the TL is basically the Accord, the most noticeable differences being the looks, engine and drivetrain and a slightly stiffer structure.
  • jdog915jdog915 Posts: 9
    I own a 99 Accord Ex. The Accord has a little more power then the Camry. The only thing that stopped me from buying a Camry is because of it's accleration. Now, I regret it. My Accord has 14k miles on there right now, and it's already having problems. A few weeks ago, the ABS lights came on. I thought it was just some wiring problems, but I was very wrong!!! The ABS FAILED when I needed it!!! Also, sometimes, the transmission would seem to get stuck in that gear. I have the 4 cyl. engine and once you go over 3400 RPM, it gets L O U D ! ! ! I don't care if it's loud and it has power and it acclerats fast, but the Honda doesn't. It's loud but it doesn't acclearate!!! On my 4 cyl. the 0-60 is somewhere around 9 seconds with an almost empty fuel tank. I think that is very slow. If you want an Accord, you would be able to get an EX 4 cyl. for 20,500. Don't accept the offer for any deal over 21,000. I got mine for 23,100, which I regret. Honda has a high resale value. I really recomend a Nissan Maxima. It costs a little more but it's worth it. The Maxima has a V6 222Hp engine, which is VERY powerful! The Honda V6 has 200 HP, while mine has 150HP. If you're wanting to get a Camry, get the V6 because when I test drove the 4 cyl. it didn't have a lot of power compared to the Accord 4 cyl.
  • My 2k EX I4 purchased last September has now passed 10k miles and I have NOT had 1 single problem with it. It's not a race car, but it does get out of its own way.
  • heckel2heckel2 Posts: 19
    I was wondering about buying a v6 but I was wondering do you have to put a higher octane gas in it or can you use the same gas 87 octane like you can in the 4. I was just wondering. I also have a 99 toyota camry with about 10,500 miles on it and love it very much. I just don't want the same car twice. Heard Hondas were very reliable and they are quite a bit cheaper in my area. Please get back with me if anyone has any ideas about the gas octane. Thanks
  • I'm a college student that's graduating soon so I'll be purchasing a car in the next 6mo. to a year. In the meantime, however, I drive hand-me-down Toyota Camry's from my parents.

    The one that's "mine" is a 1990 Camry 4cyl 5-spd with over 200k miles on it. We've hardly had any problems with it and it's been a great car, and because of this I'd consider buying one myself. The car is reasonably peppy with the 5-sped and 4cyl, but now lets move on to my parent's newer Camry's.

    They have a 1998 Camry LE (4, auto), and a 2000 Camry XLE (4, auto). Let me tell you, these are the SLOWEST cars I have EVER driven! ZERO off the line acceleration. ZERO low-end torque. At highway speeds the car is MISERABLE.

    The 2.2L 4 has an extremely narrow power band. There's little to no power before 3500 rpm, and none whatsoever after 5000rpm. This is compounded by the fact that the transmission is geared for 100% economy and 0% performance. When you're on the highway running about 70 mph the engine turns about 2500rpm. If you need some passing power it'll kick down out of overdrive only after "encouragement" (firewalling), or the OD defeat switch. So then it hits about 3500 rpm which is the base of the power band, but not in it. No deal. If you completely floor it it'll downshift to 2nd gear (at 70+ mph), at which point it hits over 5000rpm...and there's STILL no power because now it's PAST the power band. There's no way to hit that sweet spot of peak torque at 4400 rpm at crusing speeds.

    The Camry can't even get out of its own way, and has ZERO power for emergency situations where you need to move fast (like when you pulled out in front of that moron with the silver car in the rain that you didn't see because they're too boneheaded to turn their lights on!)

    In defense of the slow Camry's, they're not really targeted towards younger people, so it's not really for me anyways.

    I'm considering a Jetta (1.8T or VR6), a Passat (1.8T/5spd or V6), and Accord (4cyl/5spd or V6/auto), or a Camry (V6 auto or manual 4)

    I'm used to Japanese reliability, so that rules out ALL AMERICAN CARS, and I'm not sure about the Volkswagons. I don't fit in a Maxima (6'3"), so my options are limited ;-)


  • Hello,

    I've been quoted $18,800 for a 2000
    Camry LE 4 (auto) with Value Pkg. 3 (ABS,
    daytime running lights, remote keyless
    entry, power driver's seat, and (of course!)
    floor mats). Is this reasonable, or is there
    room for me to negotiate? If so, how much?

  • yankeryanker Posts: 156
    The price for a camry LX at 18800 sounds good I have been quoted 19400 in upstate New York. I'd be interested in hearing if an XLE or an Avalon would be a better bet. We had a 97 Camry it was great and has gone to Columbus Ohio with our daughter. I own a 96 Camry and love it (64000). My wife needs the new one will consider Camry, Avalon and I will check out Honda Accord EX. What do you think? We
    are selling a 93 Corolla in near perfect condition and the dealer said try 6900 I think 5000 is more like it. Also what about leases?
  • It sound like you are getting a good deal. Invoice
    on an LE with value package and mudguards is $19278. There is a $500 rebate (at least in VA)thru the end of the month to bring the dealers cost down to $18778, so you are doing good.Make sure the destination is included in this price, (you are on a new car right?). Also see if the discount in your area is more than $500. If everything checks out and you like the car you, will know have found a good deal.
  • frag235frag235 Posts: 81
    Yes, 87 octane works just fine in the V6....all the Accords I've owned over the last 10 years have been very reliable.
  • lngo4lngo4 Posts: 1
    I bought a 2000 Honda Accord Ex (4 cyl & auto), and I have been using the 92 octane from Chevron. However, the premium gas is too expensive these days.

    So, here're my questions:
    What's the difference b/w 87 vs. 92 octane? And why use 92 octain (more expensive) when the manual says, it's ok to use 87?
    What's the difference b/w Arco's vs. Chevron's gasoline or Shell's vs. 76's?

    I appreciate if you are well knowledge on this area and be able to help me on on this info.

  • I have the same engine in my Coupe and all that I have ever put in it is 87 octane Chevron and BP. All the Accords run fine on 87 octane. Don't waste your money on the more expensive stuff.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    I own a 2000 LX 5spd Accord and all I run is 87octane, it runs fine. You are wasting your money on gas. Save your money and buy some accessories! :-))...
  • gerapaugerapau Posts: 211
    Stevepake: If you don't fit in the Maxima then you probably shouldn't be looking at the cars that you mentioned. The Maxima is MUCH larger then the Jetta and Camry and noticably larger then the Accord or Passat. It surprises me that you can fit in your Camry and not in a Maxima which has more legroom, more headroom, more hiproom, more shoulderroom and more overall interior space. And that is compared to the 2000 Camry. The 1990 Camry that you drive is even smaller then the current generation. In fact, the Maxima is closer in size to the Avalon then it is to the Camry.
Sign In or Register to comment.