Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

1202123252635

Comments

  • webby1webby1 Member Posts: 209
    I have the 2002 Accord Coupe, 2002 Civic and the 2001 Civic and I would not buy another Accord.
    The Civic is a great car. The seat is perfect ( for me and my wife ). The seat in the Accord is 6 way PS and I can not find a position that suits me. Also the tracking in Civic is perfect it is like driving on railroad tracks whereas the Accord is drifting all over. I replaced the tires, wheel aligned, rotated tires every possible combination and the Accord still drifts. Accord will be traded soon.
    Hope that gives you an idea how I feel about the Accord...oh yes the Civic cost less and runs on reg gas....Accord 6 needs premium.
  • ral2167ral2167 Member Posts: 791
    my V6 2001 accord coupe tracks straight... runs on reg fuel .... coin box is good too... power seat adjustment is fine although i wish the headrest would pivot forward as it's not really a head rest, it just helps with whiplash i reckon.... if you're using premium fuel on the v6 accord i kinda wonder why....am i nuts?
  • mikek37mikek37 Member Posts: 411
    Using premium in accords, other then the 03, will actually hinder performance.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    "There was a big difference in the 30-60 acceleration of the Passat and Accord in that same comparison. The Accord was much slower"

    It was top-gear acceleration. And if you read the test results you will see that all of the manual transmission cars had much higher top gear acceleration because the automatics can't be held in top gear therefore they were downshifting while the manual transmissions cars were not.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I don't think it would "hinder" performance. Actually it would help. Your wallet would be lighter, power-to-weight ratio would improve. :)
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Actually I was comparing the A4 Avant to the Passat 4motion. The 4motion is actually heavier than the Avant. The 4motion also has the smaller and less powerful 2.8 V6. What it comes down to is the greater capacity and utiliy of the Passat v. the higher performance and sexy shape of the Avant.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    That was my point. Why get the Passat 4-Motion unless you live in an area where you need 4-Motion? You can get the FWD 1.8T Passat for less and the performance potential is a real bonus. The 1.8 can be chipped to 250HP or more, if you're so inclined. You get the same engine as the Audi for much less money, less weight, more cargo space, and the sexy shape of the Passsat. Why pay so much more for the Audi brand name? Just for the snob appeal?
    I have heard that VW will be making 4-motion available with the 1.8T. Not sure when..
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Actually the decision would be easier if the Passat does have a sexy shape. It looks more like mommy-wagon than sportswagon, IMHO.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    It does have a sexy shape, that's been said many times in the automotive press. If you want to spend $6k more, go ahead. It depends on where your values are. I've seen Passat wagons with aftermarket equipment that look as sexy as anything out there. Just go to clubb5.com and look at all the wagons. They're definitely not mom-mobiles.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    But I think you may have confused good looks with sexy. The Passat is a fine-looking wagon, no question, but the Avant is clearly on another level style-wise. Also, is the price difference really 6K, if both are similarly equipped. Just off the top of my head, the difference in Canada is about 6K CDN, but, again just off the top of my head, the Passat would not include self-levelling Xenon, and the sophisticated ESP.
  • rev4rev4 Member Posts: 38
    Has anyone purchased the new 6cyl engine?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    This is for the Passat? For '04?
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    ESP is only a $257 option on the Passat. That won't narrow the price difference very much.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    the 210 hp is for the new camry v6.
  • dieselbreathdieselbreath Member Posts: 243
    If you're going for luxury, you don't have a choice ... VW Forces V6 on 4-motion or GLX.
    But if you're a performance nut, not only can the 1.8t be built up to a LOT of HP for less than you'll save over the V6 ... its a couple hundred pounds lighter giving quicker acceleration and much better balance for handling ( = less understeer).
    Of course there's turbo-lag, but that can be minimized if you know how to drive a turbo.
    Stabbing the gas-pedal actually slows you down compared to smoothly pressing it ... its related to an in-rush of dense air "stalling" the turbo on the input side before it spins up .... it requires a fairly long explanation, but its logical, and you can really feel it when you drive.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    That's too bad. The Passat V6 could use a bit more power (as does the Camry V6).
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    in 2004 on the GLS models
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I mean the 1.8t GLS
  • dieselbreathdieselbreath Member Posts: 243
    That's interesting.
    They had 4-motion in the GLS (V6 only), then dropped it in Canada. You need a GLX or W8 now.
    Its hard to follow what VW is doing model-wise.
    I'd love to have a 1.8t 4-motion ... like a roomier A4-Quattro for less money!
    But my ideal Passat would be the European V6-TDI with 4-motion and the 6-speed!
    Too bad we don't get the fun cars here....
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    This is a pretty sexy wagon. Not a typical mom-mobile.

    http://clubb5.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=41632
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    One thing to keep in mind, regarding Passat vs. Audi A4. The Passat comes in a FWD V6 version with either a manual or a conventional automatic. The Audi comes only with the CVT in FWD V6 form. The Passat is also larger, and rides nicer. Out here in Southern Cal., it is nearly impossible to get a A4 V6 without the sport package and the low profile tires and stiff suspension makes for a very harsh ride.

    That said, the Audi does have some nice options (i.e., Xenons) that the Passat does not have and the Audi is much nicer looking.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    The link to the wagon in post # 1187 is no longer good since they revised the B5 site. Here's the new link....

    http://www.clubb5.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41632&sid=5fb16f- f18f125f5aaa6f50775ac2ba59
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    In view of your unwavering support of the Passat wagon styling, I devoted a good chunk of my time at the auto show looking at the Avant and the Passat. I do have to admit, in the flesh, the styling merits of the 2 are closer. The Passat has a very handsome face to it. The slant of the headlights and grill can be more appreciated when view in person. The rear end of the Passat is still more attractive, IMO. From the B pillar back the Passat is rather "blocky". In terms of side profile, the Volvo V70R beats both of them! The 300 bhp in the Volvo is also very attractive!

    BTW, is the Passat due for a re-style for MY '04?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I mentioned to a VW salesman at the auto show that the sedan has a significantly smaller trunk in 4motion guise. But he said he didn't think so. He said the only difference is that the 4motion has a space-saver spare. He seemed to imply that there is no perceivable difference in useable space. They didn't have a 4motion sedan in the show so I couldn't challenge him on the spot. Was he out to lunch? Is the difference in trunk capacity as noticeable as the specs would seem to indicate?
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    The readers of Automobile Magazine in the May issue voted the Volkswagen Passat "Best Family Car" for 2003. One reader said "Practical without being a boring appliance. Take note Honda and Toyota."

    bodble2,research the Volvo reliability. They're owned by Ford now.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    But I wish the Accord had the Passat's styling or the Passat had the Accord's reliability.

    I was driving home yesterday from my J-O-B, and low and behold there in line right beside each other are two fairly new cars: The Honda Accord EXV6 and a Passat GLS. The Passat was just plain nice looking. The Accord looked good too, surprisingly. The Accord looks good in certain colors, especially Graphite Pearl. Well, I was thinking to myself, if only the Accord and Passat could work together and make one completed car with the Passat's styling and the Accord's reliability.

    If Nissan had been smart, they would have had the Alternative.

    If the Altima just had a nice interior (on par with the AccordI and got rid of those taillights, it would be my ideal choice, bar none.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that.

    I am still in love with both the Accord and Passat, along with the Camry, Mazda6 and Altima.

    How can a 17 year old be so into midsize family sedans? Well, it shows I have good taste. LOL
  • soberssobers Member Posts: 496
    Passat is a nice car, but IS smaller, is costlier at least 3000-4000 than comparable Accord & doesNOT have a nice coupe version!! Has a technologically inferior setup in the rear-suspension than the Accord. Car & Driver, RoadnTrack & Motortrend have declared Accord as winner while compared to the Passat. While I decide for myself & depend on road tests/comp test just as one more guide, it just affirms your own findings. With the redesign Accord has left Camry/Altima in the dust in overall execution in the Interior. Exterior styling is also now dististictive & also upscale. Though still a bit conservative. It kick Passat when compared to value for money, reliability, maintenance/service costs. Long term reliabiulity is just superb. It is amzhing how much you $$ you get back at the time of resale.
  • soberssobers Member Posts: 496
    Accord had a few more color choices, atleast 2 more colors.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    Like the old Black Currant Pearl. Now that was a nice color on the 6th generaton Accord.

    It lasted from 1998-2000 I believe.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    You quote mags when they pick the Passat, but when the Accord is picked (RT, MT, CD, Autoweek ) you diss them or say that the Passat is a 7 year old platform. Isn't this being a hypocrite? You conveniently forget that the Passat had a major midlife redesign (VW called it 2001 1/2 model) and is a different beast than what was unveiled years ago. Alss, pray since according to you this is a 7 yr old platform, how come VW still hasn't sorted out quality issues, the biggest being the ignition coil issue? And you keep dissing Accords first year teething problems. WOW. And infact you should take note, not Honda & Toyota, since Accords have been winning a majority of comparisons. Oh, but you won't acknowledge that, right? But you will quote Automobile.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    03accordman. I have not been dissing Accords, My daughter has one, and I think they're improving with each generation. The Accord fans just think that ONLY the Accord has been getting recognition, and I'm pointing out that both the Accord and Passat are winning recognition (sorry, I have not counted how many for each). My point is that the Passat continues to win recognition even though it is due to be replaced in the next couple of years, and it is doing that with a 7 year old platform against a brand new Accord platform!
    The 2001.5 was mostly cosmetic changes with some minor mechanical changes and increased horsepower, still basically the same platform.
    The coils have been an annoyance, but VW has replaced them, and other than that, mine has been problem free, and even with that minor annoyance, a kick to drive. I look forward to my commute every day.
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    If only the reliability aspect was being effectively addressed by VW/Audi, I'd be in its fold now.

    When it came down to signing on the dotted line, rational factors such as resale value and upkeep cost won over the German experience. A pity, since the Passat, A6 and TT coupe where once aspiration cars for my car-crazy family.

    Until more discretionary income comes our way, I guess we'll keep driving the lower-maintenance, "milder-personality" mainstream vehicles. Or is Honda saying "doesn't have to be that way !" for its next generation models ?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    If we're talking about platforms in the strict technical sense, I think the new Accord uses the same "platform" as the previous generation. In contrast, the current Camry is supposedly based on a whole new platform, apparently the first new platform in several generations of Camrys (Camries?)
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    The Passat consistently has the top resale value in it's category, I believe it's even better than the Toyota and Honda.
     Reliability is not an issue with the Passat as long as you're within the 4 yr. warantee (except for the trips to the dealer, and they have given me a loaner). As I said, the only issue for me was the coils, and they were replaced. Other than that the car has been problem free. We'll see how it does long term, this is my first, and it won't be my last Passat unless it has horrible reliability.
    My daughter had her Accord back to the dealer for minor mechanical problems and fit and finish issues. They still haven't fixed a strange creaking noise and irritating vibration.
  • mikek37mikek37 Member Posts: 411
    You keep uttering the same ignorant messages. How many times must it be said that the Passat does not have a better resale value then HONDA( After five years, the Accord will be worth more then your passat, its a fact. Compound that with the fact that the passat(top of the line) cost $4000 more intially when compared to the honda, yet after 5 years the Honda is worth more, hmm says something about the car doesnt it.
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    Looked up Edmunds' depreciation rates for the Passat 1.8T GLS and Accord EX (both 4 cyl/auto), with the following findings:

    1) For the period 1998-2002, depreciation rates are 39.1% Passat and 36.0% Accord (based on private party prices of pre-owned units).

    2) Here's the kicker: Passat's off-the-lot depreciation on the first year is approximately 37.4% versus 31.0% for the Accord (based on 2003 TMV and 2002 private party prices; Accord's new body style for 03 would have seriously driven down the 02 pre-owned price but apparently it didn't).

    A free loaner is good customer service; however one might take into account as I do the associated downtime and inconvenience. I'll probably also have a sense of deprivation - I bought a car but I'm driving a common-use vehicle instead.

    High time German carmakers consider Denso as an electronics provider.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    First of all I don't like you calling my statements ignorant because you don't agree with me, it's childish.
    Second,go to this link-
    http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/70532/artic- - le.html
    where they say "The Volkswagen Passat was given Automotive Lease Guide's Residual Value Award for the Midsize Car segment — meaning that it holds its value better than any other car in its class. Volkswagen of America also received the Industry Brand Residual Value Award from ALG. "
  • airowensairowens Member Posts: 5
    Unable to decide between the purchase of a '03 Passat GLX or '03 Accord EX V6, my husband and I decided to test them both out side by side. We found 2 dealerships across the street from each other, stopping at Honda first. We took our second test drive and were still very impressed with the features, performance and comfort. Within minutes we mosied our way over to the VW dealership and crawled around the Passat GLX. At that moment, it was hands down, no contest. The Accord was far superior in size and comfort. Not to mention storage space, which the Passat virtually has none! Drove the Passat for a second time and were even more convinced that the Accord was the vehicle for us. The V6 Accord with it's 240 horses has a much smoother acceleration without the annoying lag you get from the 190hp V6 Passat. The ride and handling was also much smoother. We chose the Navi option on the Accord which also provides much better ergonomics than the busy dash and console on the Passat. And in my opinion, I love the exterior, having a classy yet mildly sporty look to it. But to top it all off, we ended up purchasing the top of the line Accord with absolutely everything at a purchase price nearly $2500 lower than the Passat which had fewer options.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    airowens, congratulations on your new ride. I did the same thing, and my daughter has an Accord. For many reasons already discussed in this forum, I ended up with the Passat. Isn't it great to have competition and choices. It would be very boring if we all drove the same car.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    mike, as mentioned in my earlier post, bjbird keeps repeating the same line like a broken record. Automobile mag is fine for bjbird (picks Passat) but all others, CD, RT, MT are ignored coz they pick the Accord. Similarly, Atlantabenny posted resale figures, but no, bj keeps reeling off an earlier article, in this case from the same source, i.e edmunds. Actually in real life, even a kid out there knows that the Accord has better resale than a Passat, in fact one of the best resale values for all cars.

    Again, like airwovens, you mention the Passat crushing HP numbers of a stock V6 Accord, bj will immediately talk of chipping the Passat, conveniently forgetting the voided warranty such a modification would result in. bj will also at that point forget to mention that in his post he did say that minor problems are ok as long as you have a Warranty. Lets see what happens if you do happen to chip the Passat and later have a coil or some other problem. Well bj would never get to that point since in his mind he knows he's never gonna chip his car, so that's that.

    Regarding inconvenience in having to do frequently to the dealer with a new car, bj might be ok with that and driving a loaner, but most other people are busy trying to earn a living and having to go to the dealer frequently does amount to a big inconvenience. BTW, I have yet to see a Passat on the road with all lights functioning propoely, one or the other bulb is always fused. I know bj won't admit this, but I am sure even he is facing the same "small inconvenience"
  • mikek37mikek37 Member Posts: 411
    You hit the nail right on its proverbial head.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I know the warranty will cover the actual $$ of the repairs, but having something repeatedly go wrong with your car and having to bring it in is very mentally stressful (for me). The fact that the problem(s) may not be (quickly) fixable is also a definite possibility. The weak point for Audi/VW is probably electronic/electrical gremlins, and those are notoriously difficult to diagnose and rectify.

    It's really too bad Audi/VW still has the reliability issue because some of their cars are very attractive, both in style and in concept. An all-weather family hauler like the 4motion would have been a real good fit for someone like me.
  • leifleif Member Posts: 41
    Talking about repeating the same line. Why do You keep bringing up that CD,MT and RT pick the accord over the passat? This has been covered many times. MT has not tested the two together in a long time and CD compared a dogmatic passat to a standard accord.
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    Other than what the press tells us is the case, the 03 Accord ("7th gen") seems like a totally new platform as indicated by wheelbase and track dimensions:

    1) Wheelbase: 107.9 in. for 2003 vs 106.9 in. for 6th gen Accord (1998-2002)
    2) Track: 61.1/61.2 for 2003 vs 61.2/60.4 for 6th gen

    The 03's drivetrain, which ultimately sold me on the car, is also practically new (4 cyl/auto as case in point) vs the previous model:

    1) variable valve timing, intake & exhaust plus DOHC (previous: exhaust - or intake, not sure - only and SOHC)
    2) 5-speed auto transmission (6th gen had only 4-speed). Todate, no same-class car has the 5-auto unless the Passat is included

    Honda's genius also comes to play with the engine reorientation, where the exhaust manifold points rearward - allowing cleaner emissions and less backpressure. 6th gen Accord - not so.

    All told, 03 Accord owners can probably rest easy with the thought that their cars are a new generation model.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I read it on Edmunds.com and somewhere else as well. It wouldn't surprise me.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    03accordman. When you repeat the same articles over and over, you always forget to mention that the Passat was Editor's choice over the accord in Edmunds and the Passat was the winner in the Reader's choice in Edmunds and Automobile Magazine, and the V6 Passat was the choice in Consumer Reports over the accord . Deja Vu all over again.
    Enjoy your ride. I am.

    I also remember Edmunds saying that the Passat has the best resale value. That was one of many reasons I bought the car.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    Here it is. The top 10 cars with the highest residual value, from Edmunds:

    Compact Car: Mini Cooper
    Midsize Car: Volkswagen Passat
    Near Luxury Car: BMW 3 Series
    Luxury Car: Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class
    Minivan: Honda Odyssey
    Sub Compact SUV: Honda CR-V
    Compact SUV: Acura MDX
    Full-Size SUV: Toyota Sequoia
    Compact Truck: Toyota Tacoma
    Full-Size Truck: Toyota Tundra
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    ...there is a difference.

    Residual values pertain more to leased vehicles. As such, they are driven by 1) lease providers who estimate a car's worth at lease-end, and said estimate is in turn influenced by the 2) lease/purchase mix of that particular brand.
      
    Simply put, more expensive cars (such as the Passat) tend to be leased and at lease-end, who buys them back at a high price but that brand's dealer network.

    The dealer network can afford to do this because they resell the off-lease cars as premium-priced "used certified cars" with manufacturer-backed APRs.

    Hence, we'll see that the dealer's high buy-back price drives the car's residual value up - a misleading indicator of what the used car is worth.

    In the private party marketplace, it's quite different as per my post #1203.

    Thus, if one owns - not leases - a Passat, the residual value isn't the guide to the car's true worth; it's the resale value in the private buyers' market. And I believe the seller of a used car with a negative reputation behind it is going to feel that the hardest (e.g., a beautiful 45k/99 Audi A6, $35k when new, for $17k only - that must hurt).
  • leifleif Member Posts: 41
    Audi A6? I think you're in the wrong board.
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    I used the A6 to get the point across, being that it and the Passat are mechanical cousins, and both are in rough waters because of poor quality perception.

    Just lamenting that such greatly conceived and engineered cars are let down in execution.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.