Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat
"My point is that it took seven years for the Accord to be considered as a close competitor, and then, only in the last year(or two depending on how you look at it) of the current generation Passat."
That's highly debatable... the previous generation Accord has always been among the top rated cars in its class, and considered as a very strong competitor to the Passat. In CR, for example, the Passat and Camry were tied as of last year, and the Accord was the slightest tick behind them, still highly recommended for comparably equipped models.
Same with Car and Driver... in the last test between the cars, the Passat beat the Accord by 1 out of 100 points. Even the editors said that only thing that prevented the Accord from winning was their preference for the Passat's styling.
And both magazines praised the 2002 Accord for how competitive the design remained against redesigned competition (Camry and Altima, particularly), even in the last year of that generation. So the Passat isn't the only car in its class that has aged gracefully.
These 2 reports (and there are others, but I keep getting criticized for referring to reports, so I'll leave it at 2) are strong evidence that in the minds of many automotive experts, the previous generation Accord and Passat were already close competitors. It's just now with the redesign of the Accord for 2003 that many of these same publications give the nod to the Accord.
"In 17 of the 21 years we've bestowed our 10Best awards, a Honda Accord has been on the list. No other car approaches that track record, and judging by the latest Accords, generation seven in a line that goes back 27 years, the dynasty is likely to continue indefinitely. The Accord's secret has been a combination of solid construction, agile handling, optimal use of interior space, flawless ergonomics, and outstanding powertrains."
That pretty much says it all. I don't think Honda is playing "catch up" to anyone in its class.
Hmm, well if you guys are going to continue to post quotes, I guess I'll have to post another set of quotes to show that Edmunds is not alone in it's opinion of the new Accord.
From Dan Jedlicka, MSN Auto reviews:
"The Honda Accord has been one of precious few Japanese cars that have provided a European driving feel. No longer—the 2003 Accord has been revamped to be a smoother, more mainstream car to compete with rivals such as the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima.
Too bad for the loss of individuality, but that's apparently the path for Japanese automakers to take in the mid-size car market if high volumes are wanted."
And
"While Honda says it has made the Accord sportier, it no longer has the general feel of sporty European sedans, which have sharp handling and let some road noise in the cockpit so a driver doesn't feel isolated from the world.
The new Accord interior no longer has road noise and definitely feels as if it should be more appealing to comfort-oriented mainstream sedan buyers. If this is a "Euro-style" car, it's like cushy European "boulevard" models, not hard-edged sports sedans."
and
"The new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans. But forget the old driving kicks."
Sounds like a few people think it's become just another boulevard cruiser. No "Drivers Wanted" here.
The passat beat the accord in a 1998 C&D comparo, yet the accord made 10 best cars that year and the passat did not? C&D tends to contradict themselves quite often.
"The passat beat the accord in a 1998 C&D comparo, yet the accord made 10 best cars that year and the passat did not? C&D tends to contradict themselves quite often."
They're aware of this and it is not a contradiction to them. They use different standards and factors for "10 Best Cars" than they do for individual comparos, so a "10 Best" winner might not always be the top car in a comparo, although it should place highly. As in the test that you cited, where the Accord was beaten by 1 point by the Passat, because they liked its styling better.
So it has been addressed in their magazine. I'll let you do your own research on that one.
"An 18,000 premium midsize family sedan should include these basic safety features, especially when lower priced "lesser cars" do{golf}."
Within the model years discussed, the Passat was the ONLY car in its class with all of those features standard. And it was also the most expensive car by a significant margin when comparing like powertrains and trim levels. An $18,000 Passat has been conspicuous by its absence for years.
The same applies to the Golf... you're paying for those features because the Golf is the high price leader in its class, just like the Passat.
Sorry, but VW doesn't set the standard for equipment in the various classes in which it participates. If they want to overachieve with equipment and price, that's their choice. Clearly they pay with lost sales by forcing people to buy things they may not want.
If you are going to post quotes, you MUST post a link. Otherwise you could be putting the Town Hall in copyright violation territory. (That is also true of pictures, btw, but that's not an issue here at this point.)
Second and equally important rule: debate the cars all you want, no problem. But if you find yourself wanting to slam in any way another poster, PLEASE stop and think a minute.
Firstly, personal attacks are way off-limits here. Secondly, utilizing same only indicates to the bulk of our readership that you are not able to find a rational way to discuss your preferences and your differences with other poster. That immediately discounts any prior points you may have made and obliterates your own credibility.
THIRD, we *all* need to remember that we are all different, we all have our own unique set of priorities, we are all entitled to our own set of preferences, and NONE of us know *better* than the other person what that other person's needs and wants are or "should be."
Trying to "make" another person accept a personal point of view is a ridiculous exercise in futility and discounts YOU in the eye of the reader, not the other person.
We are here to discuss and debate the relative merits and demerits of these vehicles. We are NOT here to beat each other over the head in a completely futile effort to get others to do a 180 in their beliefs.
Is there any useful comparative dialogue left to be had here?
Thanks for your post. You are certainly correct in your views but, please do not close this topic. According to the "Consumer Reports" magazine these three vehicles are at the top of the mid-size category. Anyone looking for a good mid-size vehicle should consider these three. The VW is the only one where reliability is a question mark but there is no question that it is a fine automobile. Any new reader would want to come to this post and read the various statements made concerning these three vehicles.
Why are more Toyota Camry purchased in the USA than any other sedan? (Honda Accord has also held the distinction...and, horrors, not many years ago the Ford Taurus did). Has the Volkswagen Passat EVER been the best selling sedan in the USA?
No, the VW Passat has never been the best selling sedan in the USA. You clearly already know that.
But we probably don't want to go there, because that would most spark another common debate where some people ask the question "does higher sales mean a better car"?
From prior experience, that's a debate that I can assure you we want to avoid. It can get ugly, and we're already grounded. JK!!!!!
The Accord and Camry are selling huge volumes by appealing to the average mainstream American driver who wants basic reliable transportation.
Once again excerpts from reviewer Dan Jedlicka, MSN Auto reviews:
"The Honda Accord has been one of precious few Japanese cars that have provided a European driving feel. No longer—the 2003 Accord has been revamped to be a smoother, more mainstream car to compete with rivals such as the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima.
Too bad for the loss of individuality, but that's apparently the path for Japanese automakers to take in the mid-size car market if high volumes are wanted."
"The new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans. But forget the old driving kicks."
Jedlicka's comments are much in the minority, at least when it comes to the Accord.
For example, Road and Track magazine:
Where the Accord outscores the Passat in steering, handling and driving excitement.
Where they they say that with its numb steering and soft handling dynamics, the Passat no longer feels like a German car.
Where they say with its accurate and responsive steering and precise cornering, the Accord does feel like a German car.
Basic transportation? Hardly... it's the Accord that provides the driving kicks in their eyes, not the Passat.
There are so many more like comments from other sources, but at Pat's request, I won't include any direct quotes. Might I suggest that we all follow suit?
If the Passat was the best selling car in that class then I would have never bought one. I don't want to drive what everybody else is. Another reason I bought one is because I needed a wagon. I test drove some Japanese cars but they just didn't appeal to me either because of the way they drove or because of my concern about the outside appearance of Japanese cars in general. Personal taste there---no right or wrong. Not debatable so don't even think about it. The Passat drives very well for what I want it to do. For more vigorous driving I still have my BMW sedan. Wouldn't be encouraging for people to post their opinions in a thoughtful and mature way without discounting their own opinions by tearing down other people's thoughts and their choice of vehicle. Perhaps that is asking too much. I couldn't care less what the rest of you drive.
"Wouldn't be encouraging for people to post their opinions in a thoughtful and mature way without discounting their own opinions by tearing down other people's thoughts and their choice of vehicle. Perhaps that is asking too much. I couldn't care less what the rest of you drive."
Yes, it would be encouraging. For my part, as with you and your Passat, I feel that the Accord drives very well for what I want it to do. And it's capable of being pushed pretty hard when I want to. As for best selling or not, I really don't care. If the car is right, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if 10 other people or 10 million other people are driving it.
I don't post here to tell someone that their choice is bad. I DO post here to provide a counterpoint when someone else tries to claim that my choice is bad, if I feel that the criticism is unwarranted or debatable. Or that their choice is some kind of unattainable benchmark, and by comparison, my choice isn't worthy.
Unfortunately, we don't seem to be genteel enough to play by the rules you suggest. In my experience in these forums. some owners are so defensive about their choice of cars that they interpret any complimentary information about the competition as a criticism of their choice. So how can you list any positives about your car if others are going to view those positives as criticisms of their car? You don't even have to actually criticize the chosen cars of such people to be accused of criticizing said car. With those kinds of reactions, thoughtful and mature exchanges will never be possible.
So, if you're looking for "people not behaving badly", it seems that this will never be the place.
This is interesting, the San Diego -based Stategic Vision developed it's total Delight Index (TDI)for 2002 cars. They used a number of criteria to determine which cars not only pleased customers, but delighted them. The list is:
• Honda Insight • Chrysler PT Cruiser • Volkswagen Passat • Oldsmobile Aurora • MINI Cooper • Honda Accord • BMW 3-Series • BMW 7-Series • Pontiac Firebird • Audi TT • Honda Odyssey • Honda CR-V • Land Rover Discovery • Toyota Sequoia • BMW X5 • Toyota Tacoma • Toyota Tundra "
I thought it was interesting that there are two Toyotas, but not the Camry. Also conspicuously missing are the Audi and Mercedes sedans.
I guess I am that basic middle class mainstream American car buyer. My wife liked the looks of the Passat on the outside better than the Accord. But lets face facts that most people with family's are looking to get the most for their money. For us that was a Honda Accord. When we made our comparison for our needs we couldn't see why the Passat was so much more expensive. We did not even give it a second thought. Nice car but I'm happy with my Honda.
Stop posting Jedlicka's comments. He clearly does not represent the majority opinion among the automotive press.
Here's my take, since I bought a 2003 Accord LX about 3 months ago:
The Passat is a fine car. No doubt. But I had some two real concerns relative to the Accord: 1. Significantly more expensive 2. Base engine is a turbo - concerned about long-term repair cost 3. Reliability ratings not stellar. This is confirmed by friends and business associates whose VWs have been problematic.
Since this thread is about the Camry too, here's my reason for not buying a Camry: 1. My in-laws have a '99 and an '02. 'Nuff said. 2. It really is a nice car but completely disengaged from the driving experience.
"Stop posting Jedlicka's comments. He clearly does not represent the majority opinion among the automotive press."
When I posted Edmund's opinions, I was told they were alone in their opinion of the Accord. When another poster quoted some less than favorable Accord opinions from British motoring magazines, the respose was "what do they know?" Now Jedlicka's comments do not represent the automotive press. It seems that the automotive press is only those press members who you agree with.
"The Passat is a fine car. No doubt. But I had some two real concerns relative to the Accord:"
"1. Significantly more expensive"
Not necessarily when comparing apples to apples. When you compare similarly equipped cars the differences are not so great, and the Passat offers some features not even available on the accord.
"2. Base engine is a turbo - concerned about long-term repair cost"
The 1.8T turbo 4 cyl. engine has been around for many years and has proven itself to be virtually bulletproof if maintained according to the manual. There are many on the road over 150k miles with just routine maintainance. The problems occur when you try to over chip the engine or ignore the maintainance schedule.
3. "Reliability ratings not stellar. This is confirmed by friends and business associates whose VWs have been problematic."
Up until the notorious coil problems which VW is now correcting, reliability in Consumer Reports was excellent, and CR also always set Passat up as the standard in a family sedan for other manufacturers to meet. Now that the coil problem is behind, hopefully they will return to that standard. CR's reliability ratings are based on thousands of cars, not just friends and business associates, so I'm assuming they have some credibility. You should find out if your friends and relatives are talking specifically about the Passat, which is built in Germany, or about the Jetta or Beetle which are built in Mexico. I've heard there are differences in build quality.
I'm afraid you missed a few things that are standard in the base Passat that are not in the Accord. Why did you delete your post 1073? The Passat not only has the heated power mirrors and side curtains you mentioned, but also head curtain air bags. It also has 4 wheel antilock disc brakes, traction control, full size spare, trip computer,keyless entry, power locks, rear speakers, seat height and lumbar support, and steering wheel controls. The base Accord, the least expensive model is the DX. It does without air conditioning, keyless entry, power door locks, power mirrors, rear stereo speakers or a seat height adjuster; Unlike other Accords, it has smaller 15-inch wheels, black door handles and black mirrors.
The Passat rated as well as the Accord for reliabilty in CR after 98'
And if you want to go back, then I also found this "Insurance information Web site Insure.com recently published a list of what it considers to be the safest and deadliest cars of all time. The safest, all 2000 or 2001 models because the site considered only cars with side airbags and high ratings in IIHS and NHTSA crash tests, were the Buick LeSabre, Honda Civic, Lincoln LS, Volkswagen Passat and Volvo S80."
Bjbird's comparison between the base Passat and base Accord is so misleading it's comical. A base Passat, a GL sedan with automatic costs $22,383 according to the Edmunds TMV. The base Accord, the DX, costs $16,041 with automatic according to Edmunds TMV. A $6,000 difference!! For $6,000 more the Passat better darn well have more features!
A true apples to apples comparison (from a price perspective) would compare the Passat GL to either the Accord EX-L, which with automatic costs $22,690, $307 more than the Passat GL auto. An Accord LX-V6 costs $22,027 according to Edmunds TMV, which is $356 LESS than the Passat GL.
OK now on to the comparison. Passat GL 170 hp premium fuel 5-speed shiftable automatic external temperature display 15 inch tires full size spare 4 wheel disc brakes, ABS traction control side, head airbags heated mirrors Single CD, 8 speaker stereo
Accord EX-L 160 hp 5 speed auto regular unleaded external temp display side airbags leather seats, seat heaters 16 inch alloy wheels, compact spare 4 wheel disc, ABS 8 way power driver's seat dual-zone climate control 6 CD, 6 speaker stereo
The Accord LX-V6 gains the 240 hp V-6, but loses leather, climate control, moonroof, side air bags, and the alloy wheels.
The Passat's major advantages over the Accord are the curtain(head) airbags, shiftable automatic, and heated mirrors, the latter two of which are not available in any version of the Accord. The Accord EX's advantates are leather, dual-zone climate control, alloy wheels, moonroof, Cd changer, and power driver's seat. The LX-V6 loses a lot of luxury features but gets the V6, which has 70 more hp than the Passat.
The base Passat's (GL) true competitors are the Accord LX-V6 and EX-L, NOT the DX.
i own a 2001 accord coupe, but with all this talk about the accord and passat, the camry's getting overlooked. not so fast my friends.... the camry is a dandy car yes? smooth quiet ride...stellar reliability....i imagine it's all in what you look for... comfort versus sportiness...
since when is road noise a plus? sure i like the honda i have, but i dont dismiss the plusses of the toyota-- larger gas tank makes for 450+ miles on a tank of gas in the 4 cylinder, correct?
i can't really judge the passat, not being too familiar with it-- the radio antenna seems in a weird location when i see one on the road....at a car show it just struck me that the radios sat way too low on the passat and jetta...i hate low sitting radios...the honda has one poor tilt steering mechanism-- lock and load basically.
i do like my honda coinbox and center armrest tho-- toyota coinboxes are traditionally weak.
i think this pretty much settles this discussion... glad i could help.
Don't know what happened to my post. It just disappeared.
The Passat was equal to the Accord after 98 according to CR? Then why did it receive a black check mark in 99 for the 4 cylinder and black check marks for 99 and 00 in V6 form? If it is equal in CR then why is the Accord (along with 6 other Honda/Acura models) listed as one of the best used cars while there is NO VW (or Audi) on the list at all? If it is equal in CR after 1998 why is the Passat given a clear circle for predicted reliability? Something isn't adding up here.
As for safety...why are you bring up statistics for the 98-02 Accord? I thought we were talking about 2003 Accords. All indications are that the Accord is a safer vehicle, there are no indications that VW's reliability is significantly improved from 98.
The Camry's larger gas tank gives it a 28 mile advantage in range. The Accord actually gets 2 MPG better on the highway but the Camry has a 1 gallon advantage in tank size.
"When another poster quoted some less than favorable Accord opinions from British motoring magazines, the respose was "what do they know?"
I don't believe that the comments were questioning the knowledge or skills of the British journalists. What they were questioning was the relevance of the reports, which is a reasonable question since they aren't testing the cars that are being sold here, particularly in the case of the Accord. We all know that the Accord sold here is designed specifically for the US and Canada, and the version sold in Europe is completely different. So posting reviews from those magazines in this forum is totally irrelevant.
I too could search around for irrelevant reviews of irrelevant cars from European magazines. I've already read some that favor the Euro Accord and some that favor the Passat. But we're not discussing the Euro Accord or the European spec Passat in this forum. Fortunately, the major US magazines that are testing the exact cars that we're discussing here provide sufficient relevant information about those exact cars. And they recognize the essential parity between the Accord and Passat, as well as the Camry, as they have for years. Each car has some advantages over the others, which gives each its own personality. Pick the combination of personality, value and features that appeals most to you. Each of these cars is widely recognized for excellence in a number of areas, and you won't go wrong with any of them.
As Pat asked, are we really accomplishing anything of value by continuing to beat this dead horse?
When I listed the feature differences between the BASE Passat and BASE Accord. I was responding to anonymousposts post #1073 in which he listed features that both base models had. He missed quite a few features the base Passat has that the base Accord does not, and shortly after that post #1073 was deleted. Maybe he realized there are many more differences, I'm not sure. It's very interesting that when prices are compared, the price of base Accord is always mentioned, as if theres a HUGE price difference from the Passat. Then when I compare the features you get (or don't get) with that huge price difference on base models, everyone says "unfair!". When you compare comparably equipped models, there is very little price difference, and as you said, the Passat has very good features you can't get on any Accord.
The Camry is a "family sedan". Softer ride, and all. It does not appeal to the car mags because they want the performance.
Accord and Passast go for the performance market.
So, today, if you want a moderately priced "family sedan" you can look at a Camry, Taurus, a variety of GM products, or a Chrysler Sebring. Of those, the Camry is (IMHO), vastly superior.
For "sports Sedan" under 30K, the market is Accord, Passat, Altima, Mazda6, and teh SAAB 9-3 and 9-5 (which are discounted to under 30K). I would argue that the SAAB 9-5 discounted to 29K is better overall than the 30K passat.
"anonymousposts post #1073 in which he listed features that both base models had. He missed quite a few features the base Passat has that the base Accord does not, and shortly after that post #1073 was deleted. Maybe he realized there are many more differences, I'm not sure. "
I was comparing comparably priced cars. I was not comparing a base Passat to a base Accord. I was comparing a EX Accord to a Passat GLS. Kinda not the same as comparing a $22,000 Passat to a $16,000 Accord. What kind of new Passat can you get for $16,000? Answer is ... NONE. Can't compare features if VW doesn't have a Passat at that price level.
There is still a significant price difference. You can get a EX-V6 Accord for the price of a 4 cylinder Passat. As for 4 cylinders, as I demonstrated, a 2.0L Jetta is almost as expensive as a 2.4 EX-L Accord.
Once again,the comparably priced Accord has the six and the Passat has many other features which the Accord does not. They've all been listed in earlier posts.
I am planning to buy a car by this week ...and want to hear about your experiences ....regarding these three cars... I had one camry 2000..and pretty satisfied with that.. but as I have a chance to make a better choice ...I am rethinking what will be best for me..
A good place to start would be reading the previous posts in this forum, and then going out to your local dealers to take an extended test drive comparing all the sedans. Make the decision based on your personal preference and what you can afford. My experience with my Passat has been excellent, one of the best cars I've ever owned, and I've owned quite a few.
I would say,go for the Accord V6. Even though I owned a 2002 Camry, after test driving the new Accord V6, I find that the handling and power is first rate. Tested the Altima, and the steering feels too light. The Passat is more expensive but I've never drive one before. If money is no object the Bimmer 3 series is best. Test drove a 320i last week and is still dreaming about it.
The only two features of significance (in my opinion) that the Passat has but the Accord doesn't are: 1)shiftable automatic (i.e. sportshift) and 2)heated mirrors. It's not the "many other features" that bjbird would like to have you believe. If a sportshift automatic is of critical importance to you, then you'd have to get the TL, RSX, or upcoming TSX, or the Passat. Similarly, if heated mirrors are of critical importance to you (not to me, since I live in LA) then again, the Accord might not be your choice.
But in any other circumstance, the Accord undoubtedly offers more for the money than the Passat.
Other features/options I consider important that are standard or available on the Passat are: Heated seats lumbar supports Outside temp Trip computer Engine oil cooler Power heated door mirrors Stability control Standard fog lights Speed sensitive wipers Heated front windshield washers Rear window blind Overhead airbag Front and rear seatbelt pretensioners Sequential sportshift Rear middle seat head restraint Audio theft deterrant Auto locking doors Homelink Refrigerated/cooled box
I'm not sure how many of these are available on the Accord.
The accord does come with many of the above features you listed. As for the others you listed, engine oil cooler, sportshift (nice but how often do you use it, if it was me, I would get the real deal manual), middle head restraint( hampers rear view), heated wiper spray( my accord has yet to freeze up, even at below zero temps) are not important for the price that Volks is charging.
The only one option that I miss are the heated mirrors. Those would be nice during the cold winter months.
Homelink, seatbelt pretensioners,theft deterant,rear headrestraint, speed sensitive wipers,traction control,outside temp, heated seats and lumbar are on the accord EX V6.Are all there, and at a value that the passat can not fathom or reach.
You have a hard choice there. Any of those three are excellent choices. I am also considering these three as well as the upscale luxury Acura TL. If you can locate the "Consumer Reports" magazine they have recently and extensively tested the Camry, Altima, and the new Accord. I would NOT choose among these choices without reading the following issues: January'02--Altima and Camry
This was the article in the link below that convinced me to buy the Passat when I did. Granted it's a 2002 article, but this discussion is not limited to 2003's. I think a lot of what was said by Automobile Magazine still applies. After seven years of winning almost every concievable award, it's good to see that Passat has some competition. It will be determined how long that competition will continue to be close after the next generation Passat late next year. Accord is picking up many of the awards Passat won over the last seven years, and this with a new platform competing against a seven year old platform. I call that catching up. Even the automotive press talks about how Honda reverse engineered the Passat to develop the new Accord. The ante will go up next year.
Honda looked at European cars in general for some styling inspiration and considered the Passat a target for ride and handling, but that's the extent of the so-called "reverse engineering". Look at the technical specs. The entire chassis is an enhanced version of the previous generation Accord, not an entirely new design "borrowed" from the Passat. It has double wishbone suspension as opposed to the Passat's 4-link. The 4-cyl engine on the Accord is an iVTEC design, as opposed to the Passat's turbocharged unit. The Accord V6 is also a VTEC design, SOHC as opposed to DOHC, and a modified version of the previous Accord's V6... a basic engine design shared with the Odyssey, Pilot, Acura MDX, Acura TL, etc.
Using another car as a performance target is NOT the same thing as reverse engineering. The overall technology of the Passat and the 2003 Accord couldn't be more different.
BTW, since VW is using BMW as a performance target for the next gen Passat, I guess they'll be "reverse engineering" the BMW... at least according to your definition of the term.
I swore I wouldn't get involved in this discussion anymore, but I couldn't let such an "eyebrow raising" claim go by without a response.
It was year after year of accolades like these that helped convince me to buy the Accord. The fact that the Accord never had to "catch up" with the Passat is reflected in comments like this:
"In the competitive world of mid-size sedans, it just doesn't get any better than this."
High praise indeed. They made similar comments about the previous generation, so they're not a result of the redesign for 2003... they placed the previous gen Accord at the head of the class in every year of that generation.
Anyone who can take an unbiased view of these cars will recognize that they've been virtually neck and neck since 1998.
Honda Accord is not playing catching up with the Passat, it has actually dethrone the "King of family sedan" and has now become the King. Road and track, MT, C&R, R&T, CT,Intellichoice has chosen it as the best Family sedan for 2003. Case proven.
It only took seven years to dethrone the king! How many awards did Accord win before this year? How many editor's choices? When were they CR's benchmark? The Passat was the darling of the auomotive press for the last seven years. I could spend hours and find five Passaat wins to every Accord win up until 2003. That's called finally catching up. And it's common knowledge that Honda set out to build a better Passat. Maybe they succeeded, maybe not, it depends on which review you believe, and your personal preference. But they ended up with a car that is equal to the Passat, not miles ahead! And Passat is coming out with the improved next generation very soon... We've been saying the same things over and over, and it really comes down to personal preference. All I can say is drive both cars and make your own decision. I have both in my family, and I know which one I prefer.
If Accord used European sedans for styling inspiration, they really missed the mark. Nissan has done a better job in that regard. I can say this with some authority, since I'm an industrial designer. I have trouble telling this years Accord from last years.
I couldn't find a review of the Accord on Automobile Mag's website. Maybe you can link us to it to see what their opinion of the Accord is.
And it's funny that the only apparent favorable reviews of the Passat posted here are in relation to the 2002 Accord. The Passat has lost to the 03 Accord so Passat supporters are left with only the past to back their stance up. Funny.
Car and driven has chosen Accords one of the ten best car for the last 8 years or so but not the Passat. I've driven the Jetta and the turbo lag nearly cause me an accident while passing a semi trailor. I believe the Passat is using the similar 1.8T and a V6. I don't own any Accord yet I defend them because they are good cars. VW has realibity problems. I admit BMWs and Mercs are better car than Hondas but not VW. Sorry! Being an Industrial Engineer doesn't neccessary know about cars. I am an auto mechanic by trade.
The Accord is miles ahead if you consider the media accolades, consumer advocate accolades, and the fact that it has been one of the top-selling cars for the last 10+ years. The Passat has won a few awards and it has deserved them. It's a nice car. However, the Accord manages to be popular, reliable, and nice. They sold 98,000 Passats last year, 1/4 of total Accord sales. And if you consider the even more mundane Camry also outsold the Passat 4-1 you have to wonder if American people really give a durn about the Passats "superior styling" and "German feel". It seems they favor either a quiet, reliable, safe car (Camry) or a quiet, reliable, safe car that also manages to have a little personality (Accord). People who favor pricey German engineering with Korean reliability are obviously in the minority. Oh but wait, even the Koreans are starting to surpass VW's reliability. It's a sad time for VW when the Elantra is more reliable than the Jetta and the Sonata is more reliable than the Passat.
Comments
That's highly debatable... the previous generation Accord has always been among the top rated cars in its class, and considered as a very strong competitor to the Passat. In CR, for example, the Passat and Camry were tied as of last year, and the Accord was the slightest tick behind them, still highly recommended for comparably equipped models.
Same with Car and Driver... in the last test between the cars, the Passat beat the Accord by 1 out of 100 points. Even the editors said that only thing that prevented the Accord from winning was their preference for the Passat's styling.
And both magazines praised the 2002 Accord for how competitive the design remained against redesigned competition (Camry and Altima, particularly), even in the last year of that generation. So the Passat isn't the only car in its class that has aged gracefully.
These 2 reports (and there are others, but I keep getting criticized for referring to reports, so I'll leave it at 2) are strong evidence that in the minds of many automotive experts, the previous generation Accord and Passat were already close competitors. It's just now with the redesign of the Accord for 2003 that many of these same publications give the nod to the Accord.
"In 17 of the 21 years we've bestowed our 10Best awards, a Honda Accord has been on the list. No other car approaches that track record, and judging by the latest Accords, generation seven in a line that goes back 27 years, the dynasty is likely to continue indefinitely. The Accord's secret has been a combination of solid construction, agile handling, optimal use of interior space, flawless ergonomics, and outstanding powertrains."
That pretty much says it all. I don't think Honda is playing "catch up" to anyone in its class.
No, i do not think the passat is the best midsize car regardless of price.
From Dan Jedlicka, MSN Auto reviews:
"The Honda Accord has been one of precious few Japanese cars that have provided a European driving feel. No longer—the 2003 Accord has been revamped to be a smoother, more mainstream car to compete with rivals such as the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima.
Too bad for the loss of individuality, but that's apparently the path for Japanese automakers to take in the mid-size car market if high volumes are wanted."
And
"While Honda says it has made the Accord sportier, it no longer has the general feel of sporty European sedans, which have sharp handling and let some road noise in the cockpit so a driver doesn't feel isolated from the world.
The new Accord interior no longer has road noise and definitely feels as if it should be more appealing to comfort-oriented mainstream sedan buyers. If this is a "Euro-style" car, it's like cushy European "boulevard" models, not hard-edged sports sedans."
and
"The new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans. But forget the old driving kicks."
Sounds like a few people think it's become just another boulevard cruiser. No "Drivers Wanted" here.
They're aware of this and it is not a contradiction to them. They use different standards and factors for "10 Best Cars" than they do for individual comparos, so a "10 Best" winner might not always be the top car in a comparo, although it should place highly. As in the test that you cited, where the Accord was beaten by 1 point by the Passat, because they liked its styling better.
So it has been addressed in their magazine. I'll let you do your own research on that one.
Within the model years discussed, the Passat was the ONLY car in its class with all of those features standard. And it was also the most expensive car by a significant margin when comparing like powertrains and trim levels. An $18,000 Passat has been conspicuous by its absence for years.
The same applies to the Golf... you're paying for those features because the Golf is the high price leader in its class, just like the Passat.
Sorry, but VW doesn't set the standard for equipment in the various classes in which it participates. If they want to overachieve with equipment and price, that's their choice. Clearly they pay with lost sales by forcing people to buy things they may not want.
If you are going to post quotes, you MUST post a link. Otherwise you could be putting the Town Hall in copyright violation territory. (That is also true of pictures, btw, but that's not an issue here at this point.)
Second and equally important rule: debate the cars all you want, no problem. But if you find yourself wanting to slam in any way another poster, PLEASE stop and think a minute.
Firstly, personal attacks are way off-limits here. Secondly, utilizing same only indicates to the bulk of our readership that you are not able to find a rational way to discuss your preferences and your differences with other poster. That immediately discounts any prior points you may have made and obliterates your own credibility.
THIRD, we *all* need to remember that we are all different, we all have our own unique set of priorities, we are all entitled to our own set of preferences, and NONE of us know *better* than the other person what that other person's needs and wants are or "should be."
Trying to "make" another person accept a personal point of view is a ridiculous exercise in futility and discounts YOU in the eye of the reader, not the other person.
We are here to discuss and debate the relative merits and demerits of these vehicles. We are NOT here to beat each other over the head in a completely futile effort to get others to do a 180 in their beliefs.
Is there any useful comparative dialogue left to be had here?
2) Why Most Accord Drivers Won't Buy Less Expensive Hyundai XG350: Honda cachet, character, driving experience
3) Why Hyundai XG350 Drivers Won't Buy Even Less Expensive Future New-Car-On-The-Block: Hyundai cachet, character, driving experience
Has the Volkswagen Passat EVER been the best selling sedan in the USA?
But we probably don't want to go there, because that would most spark another common debate where some people ask the question "does higher sales mean a better car"?
From prior experience, that's a debate that I can assure you we want to avoid. It can get ugly, and we're already grounded. JK!!!!!
Once again excerpts from reviewer Dan Jedlicka, MSN Auto reviews:
"The Honda Accord has been one of precious few Japanese cars that have provided a European driving feel. No longer—the 2003 Accord has been revamped to be a smoother, more mainstream car to compete with rivals such as the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima.
Too bad for the loss of individuality, but that's apparently the path for Japanese automakers to take in the mid-size car market if high volumes are wanted."
"The new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans. But forget the old driving kicks."
For example, Road and Track magazine:
Where the Accord outscores the Passat in steering, handling and driving excitement.
Where they they say that with its numb steering and soft handling dynamics, the Passat no longer feels like a German car.
Where they say with its accurate and responsive steering and precise cornering, the Accord does feel like a German car.
Basic transportation? Hardly... it's the Accord that provides the driving kicks in their eyes, not the Passat.
There are so many more like comments from other sources, but at Pat's request, I won't include any direct quotes. Might I suggest that we all follow suit?
Yes, it would be encouraging. For my part, as with you and your Passat, I feel that the Accord drives very well for what I want it to do. And it's capable of being pushed pretty hard when I want to. As for best selling or not, I really don't care. If the car is right, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if 10 other people or 10 million other people are driving it.
I don't post here to tell someone that their choice is bad. I DO post here to provide a counterpoint when someone else tries to claim that my choice is bad, if I feel that the criticism is unwarranted or debatable. Or that their choice is some kind of unattainable benchmark, and by comparison, my choice isn't worthy.
Unfortunately, we don't seem to be genteel enough to play by the rules you suggest. In my experience in these forums. some owners are so defensive about their choice of cars that they interpret any complimentary information about the competition as a criticism of their choice. So how can you list any positives about your car if others are going to view those positives as criticisms of their car? You don't even have to actually criticize the chosen cars of such people to be accused of criticizing said car. With those kinds of reactions, thoughtful and mature exchanges will never be possible.
So, if you're looking for "people not behaving badly", it seems that this will never be the place.
The list is:
• Honda Insight
• Chrysler PT Cruiser
• Volkswagen Passat
• Oldsmobile Aurora
• MINI Cooper
• Honda Accord
• BMW 3-Series
• BMW 7-Series
• Pontiac Firebird
• Audi TT
• Honda Odyssey
• Honda CR-V
• Land Rover Discovery
• Toyota Sequoia
• BMW X5
• Toyota Tacoma
• Toyota Tundra "
I thought it was interesting that there are two Toyotas, but not the Camry. Also conspicuously missing are the Audi and Mercedes sedans.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Here's my take, since I bought a 2003 Accord LX about 3 months ago:
The Passat is a fine car. No doubt. But I had some two real concerns relative to the Accord:
1. Significantly more expensive
2. Base engine is a turbo - concerned about long-term repair cost
3. Reliability ratings not stellar. This is confirmed by friends and business associates whose VWs have been problematic.
Since this thread is about the Camry too, here's my reason for not buying a Camry:
1. My in-laws have a '99 and an '02. 'Nuff said.
2. It really is a nice car but completely disengaged from the driving experience.
Tha Accord strikes the best balance in the class.
"Stop posting Jedlicka's comments. He clearly does not represent the majority opinion among the automotive press."
When I posted Edmund's opinions, I was told they were alone in their opinion of the Accord. When another poster quoted some less than favorable Accord opinions from British motoring magazines, the respose was "what do they know?"
Now Jedlicka's comments do not represent the automotive press. It seems that the automotive press is only those press members who you agree with.
"The Passat is a fine car. No doubt. But I had some two real concerns relative to the Accord:"
"1. Significantly more expensive"
Not necessarily when comparing apples to apples. When you compare similarly equipped cars the differences are not so great, and the Passat offers some features not even available on the accord.
"2. Base engine is a turbo - concerned about long-term repair cost"
The 1.8T turbo 4 cyl. engine has been around for many years and has proven itself to be virtually bulletproof if maintained according to the manual. There are many on the road over 150k miles with just routine maintainance. The problems occur when you try to over chip the engine or ignore the maintainance schedule.
3. "Reliability ratings not stellar. This is confirmed by friends and business associates whose VWs have been problematic."
Up until the notorious coil problems which VW is now correcting, reliability in Consumer Reports was excellent, and CR also always set Passat up as the standard in a family sedan for other manufacturers to meet. Now that the coil problem is behind, hopefully they will return to that standard. CR's reliability ratings are based on thousands of cars, not just friends and business associates, so I'm assuming they have some credibility.
You should find out if your friends and relatives are talking specifically about the Passat, which is built in Germany, or about the Jetta or Beetle which are built in Mexico. I've heard there are differences in build quality.
The Passat not only has the heated power mirrors and side curtains you mentioned, but also head curtain air bags. It also has 4 wheel antilock disc brakes, traction control, full size spare, trip computer,keyless entry, power locks, rear speakers, seat height and lumbar support, and steering wheel controls.
The base Accord, the least expensive model is the DX. It does without air conditioning, keyless entry, power door locks, power mirrors, rear stereo speakers or a seat height adjuster; Unlike other Accords, it has smaller 15-inch wheels, black door handles and black mirrors.
The Passat rated as well as the Accord for reliabilty in CR after 98'
And if you want to go back, then I also found this
"Insurance information Web site Insure.com recently published a list of what it considers to be the safest and deadliest cars of all time. The safest, all 2000 or 2001 models because the site considered only cars with side airbags and high ratings in IIHS and NHTSA crash tests, were the Buick LeSabre, Honda Civic, Lincoln LS, Volkswagen Passat and Volvo S80."
A true apples to apples comparison (from a price perspective) would compare the Passat GL to either the Accord EX-L, which with automatic costs $22,690, $307 more than the Passat GL auto. An Accord LX-V6 costs $22,027 according to Edmunds TMV, which is $356 LESS than the Passat GL.
OK now on to the comparison.
Passat GL
170 hp
premium fuel
5-speed shiftable automatic
external temperature display
15 inch tires
full size spare
4 wheel disc brakes, ABS
traction control
side, head airbags
heated mirrors
Single CD, 8 speaker stereo
Accord EX-L
160 hp
5 speed auto
regular unleaded
external temp display
side airbags
leather seats, seat heaters
16 inch alloy wheels, compact spare
4 wheel disc, ABS
8 way power driver's seat
dual-zone climate control
6 CD, 6 speaker stereo
The Accord LX-V6 gains the 240 hp V-6, but loses leather, climate control, moonroof, side air bags, and the alloy wheels.
The Passat's major advantages over the Accord are the curtain(head) airbags, shiftable automatic, and heated mirrors, the latter two of which are not available in any version of the Accord. The Accord EX's advantates are leather, dual-zone climate control, alloy wheels, moonroof, Cd changer, and power driver's seat. The LX-V6 loses a lot of luxury features but gets the V6, which has 70 more hp than the Passat.
The base Passat's (GL) true competitors are the Accord LX-V6 and EX-L, NOT the DX.
since when is road noise a plus? sure i like the honda i have, but i dont dismiss the plusses of the toyota-- larger gas tank makes for 450+ miles on a tank of gas in the 4 cylinder, correct?
i can't really judge the passat, not being too familiar with it-- the radio antenna seems in a weird location when i see one on the road....at a car show it just struck me that the radios sat way too low on the passat and jetta...i hate low sitting radios...the honda has one poor tilt steering mechanism-- lock and load basically.
i do like my honda coinbox and center armrest tho-- toyota coinboxes are traditionally weak.
i think this pretty much settles this discussion... glad i could help.
The Passat was equal to the Accord after 98 according to CR? Then why did it receive a black check mark in 99 for the 4 cylinder and black check marks for 99 and 00 in V6 form? If it is equal in CR then why is the Accord (along with 6 other Honda/Acura models) listed as one of the best used cars while there is NO VW (or Audi) on the list at all? If it is equal in CR after 1998 why is the Passat given a clear circle for predicted reliability? Something isn't adding up here.
As for safety...why are you bring up statistics for the 98-02 Accord? I thought we were talking about 2003 Accords. All indications are that the Accord is a safer vehicle, there are no indications that VW's reliability is significantly improved from 98.
I don't believe that the comments were questioning the knowledge or skills of the British journalists. What they were questioning was the relevance of the reports, which is a reasonable question since they aren't testing the cars that are being sold here, particularly in the case of the Accord. We all know that the Accord sold here is designed specifically for the US and Canada, and the version sold in Europe is completely different. So posting reviews from those magazines in this forum is totally irrelevant.
I too could search around for irrelevant reviews of irrelevant cars from European magazines. I've already read some that favor the Euro Accord and some that favor the Passat. But we're not discussing the Euro Accord or the European spec Passat in this forum. Fortunately, the major US magazines that are testing the exact cars that we're discussing here provide sufficient relevant information about those exact cars. And they recognize the essential parity between the Accord and Passat, as well as the Camry, as they have for years. Each car has some advantages over the others, which gives each its own personality. Pick the combination of personality, value and features that appeals most to you. Each of these cars is widely recognized for excellence in a number of areas, and you won't go wrong with any of them.
As Pat asked, are we really accomplishing anything of value by continuing to beat this dead horse?
It's very interesting that when prices are compared, the price of base Accord is always mentioned, as if theres a HUGE price difference from the Passat. Then when I compare the features you get (or don't get) with that huge price difference on base models, everyone says "unfair!".
When you compare comparably equipped models, there is very little price difference, and as you said, the Passat has very good features you can't get on any Accord.
Accord and Passast go for the performance market.
So, today, if you want a moderately priced "family sedan" you can look at a Camry, Taurus, a variety of GM products, or a Chrysler Sebring. Of those, the Camry is (IMHO), vastly superior.
For "sports Sedan" under 30K, the market is
Accord, Passat, Altima, Mazda6, and teh SAAB 9-3 and 9-5 (which are discounted to under 30K).
I would argue that the SAAB 9-5 discounted to 29K is better overall than the 30K passat.
But a 25K accord vs 25 k passat, I am not sure.
I was comparing comparably priced cars. I was not comparing a base Passat to a base Accord. I was comparing a EX Accord to a Passat GLS. Kinda not the same as comparing a $22,000 Passat to a $16,000 Accord. What kind of new Passat can you get for $16,000? Answer is ... NONE. Can't compare features if VW doesn't have a Passat at that price level.
There is still a significant price difference. You can get a EX-V6 Accord for the price of a 4 cylinder Passat. As for 4 cylinders, as I demonstrated, a 2.0L Jetta is almost as expensive as a 2.4 EX-L Accord.
I had one camry 2000..and pretty satisfied with that..
but as I have a chance to make a better choice ...I am rethinking what will be best for me..
My experience with my Passat has been excellent, one of the best cars I've ever owned, and I've owned quite a few.
But in any other circumstance, the Accord undoubtedly offers more for the money than the Passat.
Heated seats
lumbar supports
Outside temp
Trip computer
Engine oil cooler
Power heated door mirrors
Stability control
Standard fog lights
Speed sensitive wipers
Heated front windshield washers
Rear window blind
Overhead airbag
Front and rear seatbelt pretensioners
Sequential sportshift
Rear middle seat head restraint
Audio theft deterrant
Auto locking doors
Homelink
Refrigerated/cooled box
I'm not sure how many of these are available on the Accord.
As for the others you listed, engine oil cooler, sportshift (nice but how often do you use it, if it was me, I would get the real deal manual), middle head restraint( hampers rear view), heated wiper spray( my accord has yet to freeze up, even at below zero temps) are not important for the price that Volks is charging.
The only one option that I miss are the heated mirrors. Those would be nice during the cold winter months.
Homelink, seatbelt pretensioners,theft deterant,rear headrestraint, speed sensitive wipers,traction control,outside temp, heated seats and lumbar are on the accord EX V6.Are all there, and at a value that the passat can not fathom or reach.
Of note for this forum:
The Accord won 2 awards, Best Midsize car under $21,000 AND Best Midsize car over $21,000.
Here's the link:
http://www.intellichoice.com/best_value/bovyTemplate1.cfm/templat- - - e/2003Midsize.cfm?CFID=706765&CFTOKEN=2204542
Just verifies what I knew all along... nobody beats the Accord when it comes to providing the right combination of features and price.
January'02--Altima and Camry
February'02--6 cylinder Camry and Altima
January'03-2003 Honda Accord(4-cylinder)
The ante will go up next year.
http://www.automobilemag.com/awards/2002volkswagenpassat/
Using another car as a performance target is NOT the same thing as reverse engineering. The overall technology of the Passat and the 2003 Accord couldn't be more different.
BTW, since VW is using BMW as a performance target for the next gen Passat, I guess they'll be "reverse engineering" the BMW... at least according to your definition of the term.
I swore I wouldn't get involved in this discussion anymore, but I couldn't let such an "eyebrow raising" claim go by without a response.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/10best/2003/2003_10be- - - - - - - - st_cars_honda_accord.xml
It was year after year of accolades like these that helped convince me to buy the Accord. The fact that the Accord never had to "catch up" with the Passat is reflected in comments like this:
"In the competitive world of mid-size sedans, it just doesn't get any better than this."
High praise indeed. They made similar comments about the previous generation, so they're not a result of the redesign for 2003... they placed the previous gen Accord at the head of the class in every year of that generation.
Anyone who can take an unbiased view of these cars will recognize that they've been virtually neck and neck since 1998.
It only took seven years to dethrone the king! How many awards did Accord win before this year? How many editor's choices? When were they CR's benchmark? The Passat was the darling of the auomotive press for the last seven years. I could spend hours and find five Passaat wins to every Accord win up until 2003. That's called finally catching up. And it's common knowledge that Honda set out to build a better Passat. Maybe they succeeded, maybe not, it depends on which review you believe, and your personal preference. But they ended up with a car that is equal to the Passat, not miles ahead! And Passat is coming out with the improved next generation very soon...
We've been saying the same things over and over, and it really comes down to personal preference. All I can say is drive both cars and make your own decision. I have both in my family, and I know which one I prefer.
If Accord used European sedans for styling inspiration, they really missed the mark. Nissan has done a better job in that regard. I can say this with some authority, since I'm an industrial designer. I have trouble telling this years Accord from last years.
Adios
And it's funny that the only apparent favorable reviews of the Passat posted here are in relation to the 2002 Accord. The Passat has lost to the 03 Accord so Passat supporters are left with only the past to back their stance up. Funny.
Please read the post above your last one..number 1098.