Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

sobers · May 2001

Yes, Camry has much more rental sales than Accord.
Less than 2% for Accord & almost 10% for Camry.
It helps them to keep it #1 ! Also Civic has rental sales less than 1%. The most imp difference is that Honda rental sales are not bulk deals like Toyota. Honda does not do corporation tie-ups like Toyota. Corolla is also sold to rental cos like Hertz/Avis in large numbers! These are the cars which donot have any market need & effect the demand-supply law & hence lower resale. But even then Toyota has good resale due to basic qualities like build, reliability, durability. Other hand Honda sales are thru dealers who may opt not to sell it for lower price as their quota is limited.

Corolla: Who decides it is lowly.. I don't think a car costing less is lowly. I would purchase what fulfills my needs. I bought Honda Accord as I likes it not because it is not used a taxi or so....it is just an added plus....!!

badtoy · May 2001

Good choice!

johnm23 · June 2001

I am looking at both the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry and am having a hard time deciding which car to get. There are things that I like and dislike about both cars. I think that the Camry is more classier looking but I find the visibility poor due to the high headrests. I do not like the locks on the Accord up on the door. Although the dashboard is nicer on the Camry I think the rest of the interior is nicer on the Accord. In Canada the Accord costs less than the Camry and has a few things that the Camry does not. Even though the Camry cost more, it costs approx $140/year more to license the Accord.

Accord has:

- 6CD changer - In Canada Camry does not have
- security system (Camry only has engine immobilize with top of the line car-XL V6)
- side rear view mirrors fold in - Camry's do not and if you break one off it is costly to fix
- took both out for a test drive and find that the Camry's leather seats just get luke warm - not as warm as the Accords - if you live where I do where it reaches 40 below a little bit warmer would be nice

Both have their pros and cons. Can anyone offer some suggestions to help me decide.

Thanks

badtoy · June 2001

and buy the one that turns you on. If both turn you on, find a way to buy em both or choose on the basis of price -- they're both good cars.

anselmo1 · June 2001

Buy the Camry over the Accord. The Camry is quieter and has less problems than the 6th Generation Accord. Check out Consumer Reports Magazine and you will see that the Camry has a higher rating than the Accord. I personally own one of each and both have their merits. On a scale of 1-10, I would give the Accord a 7 and the Camry a 9. Of course that is my opinion but either car would be a good choice. If you live in the heavy snows of Northern Canada, consider a Subaru with all wheel drive. They are also quite reliable.

venus537 · June 2001

Consumer Reports is the only publication I know of that rates the Camry over the Accord. Everyone else (both consumer and enthusiast base) rate the Accord better or even with the Camry. This will likely change when the new Camry comes out this Fall. Also, watch out for the new Altima also coming out this Fall. I'm looking forward to the new Accord in the Fall of 2002. All these cars will have at least 160 bhp from their base 4 cylinder engines.

Back to Consumer Reports, in their latest issue they ripped the new Dodge Stratus pretty good. I guess there's not much MB engineering going into these cars yet. Oh-no, I'm getting off the subject pretty far now.

tanveerm · June 2001

John, for a Canuck viewpoint, I've been in the same position you are for the last few months. If you need to buy a car, then pick the one that you like (it sounds like you are leaning towards the Accord). But if you can hold on for a few months then read on...

I decided not to buy the current Camry (even though Toyota has been offering 1.9-3.9% financing). With a brand-new Camry coming out this fall and so many of the current version Camry's on the road's here (Toronto-area), I couldn't justify the $32k+ cost of a loaded Camry that would look old in a few months. Not to mention, as you pointed out, Honda offers more features for the buck. The 4-cylinder Camry doesn't appeal to me - Honda's 4-cylinder gets much more praise then Camry's. If I was to go for 4-cylinder I'ld go for a Honda.

The Accord EX-V6 was very appealing to me and is a few thousand cheaper than an equally-equipped Camry. But they have not offered financing below 8.5% in the last few months. That adds another $5k to the car's cost and I will not see that cost in my car's resale value down the road. That's the only reason I'm not driving it right now.

No other cars in this price range with the level of reliability of these two.

I've decided to wait for the fall/winter. An all-new, sportier Camry. A very-classy looking new competitor in the 2002 Nissan Altima with a very strong 4-cylinder engine. Check out www.nissan.ca. In the face of this new competition, Honda should offer good finance rates. And if they don't, I can pick between two worthy, freshly-designed opponents instead of one.

Summary: If you can wait till October or even better Christmas season, you'll be better off. If you can't wait and want a loaded 6-cylinder and don't care how out-dated your car looks, consider the Camry with 1.9-3.9% financing. If you can live with a 4-cylinder but want all the other comfort features, check out the Accord EX-Leather.

ripinrocket · June 2001

I would agree. With a redesigned Camry around the corner, wait if you're looking to buy a Camry now but can wait until the fall. Plus, that way you can also check out the very nice new Altima as well as what changes if any will occur to the Accord.

If you must buy now, it's a hard choice.

I have a Accord coupe, so I think I can talk for the sedan also, I also looked at the Solara which is basically a Camry.

I like my Accord alot but I wish it had some of what the Solara/Camry has like the smoother shifting automatic transmission, the smoother ride, and better quality. My Accord is excellent quality, but as with other 98-on Accord owners, mine also has rattles(slight) in the dash and the rear deck.

jak01 · June 2001

I just signed up to buy a 2001 camry
LE 4-cyl. The dealer did not have the
color we wanted so he will order one
but 'll honor the negotiated price since
yest. was the last day for the rebate.
Opted for ABS and keyless entry pkg and
it came to 19.7K after rebate including
tax and tags.

I know the 4-cyl model lacks the power
I would have liked but my wife likes the
car and 'll be driving it most of the
time.

mpgman · June 2001

Just for kicks, I dropped into a Saturn dealer. Came away impressed to my shock and horror. The new 02s will be loaded, with ABS, traction control and head curtain airbags standard, even on the 4 cylinder. Reinforced sides should also improve the crash tests for which Saturn has asked for a new evaluation. MPG rating is at least 24/32 with the 4 and automatic. Seats are great and you can get leather without having to take a sunroof. Won't argue that the Accord/Camry have better build quality and are more refined, but Saturn may rate a look. 0.9 financing for 5 years on the 01s. Just another opinion.

ripinrocket · June 2001

Doesn't Toyota also have ridiculously low finance rates?

petermanach · June 2001

I am looking for a few opinions. Within my budget I can, buy 2001 new Accord Value Package or Camry CE. I currently drive an Accord LX and I drive 30M per year mostly highway miles.

I very much would appreciate your opinions.

jmnygaard · June 2001

Peter,
Just for kicks, go look at a Mazda 626 before you make a decision. I have driven an Accord (4cyl 5M), a Camry (4cyl A), and a 626 (5M V6...yes, it is possible to get one from Mazda) in the past week. Obviously, the 626 was a much sweeter drive, but even sitting in it felt great. It is sporty AND classy, if you can picture that. They also have good financing now. (And despite what others will tell you, they are rated fairly well, too.) I did like the Camry, though, but haven't heard anything so far to justify the higher cost.

Joyce

mpgman · June 2001

Go look at the just released Hyundai Elantra GT 5 door hatch with the moonroof, ABS, and traction control package. I got one for $16K and love it! Standard leather and full power, with 4 wheel discs, alloys, Michelins, great stereo, trip computer...the works. Solid ride and averaging around 30 mpg.

jmnygaard · June 2001

It was interesting to hear about the new Camry's coming for 2002, because the dealer didn't tell me that. After reading about that here, I asked the Honda dealer about changes coming for the Accord. He said major changes are scheduled for 2003.

By the way, all the major dealers have good financing now, at least for the next couple of weeks.

kam66 · June 2001

Just my two cents but definitely test drive both vehicles with the engine/transmission combination you're thinking about. My wife and I were leaning towards a Camry with manual transmission until we test drove one (only manual transmission the dealer had on his lot out of 50 Camrys). Maybe we got a bad sample, but we found the car uninspiring, with a vague clutch take-up and brakes/suspension that felt soft. We'll probably go to another dealer to try a different car and see if we get the same general impression (unfortunately for us the V6/man is very rare in our neck of the woods, so we actually test drove a 4/man).

Last Saturday we stopped by a Honda dealer to try out an Accord Ex (4/man). We weren't totally sure what to expect, but found the car to be very comfortable to drive, with firmer handling and brakes than the Camry. IMO the only thing the car could use is more torque down low. Would have like to try an Accord V6/man, but Honda doesn't currently offer this combination (nor does Aura with the AL).

As for buying a car right now, it's definitely going to be a buyers market for the next couple of months. This segment is continuing to get more competitive, with increased horsepower and features from a variety of makers. The car that seems to be the x-factor is the new Altima, with a 180hp base engine and 240hp in the DE version (in what appears to be an attractive body, at least from pictures). In addition, Nissan's reliability appears to be pretty solid according to the CR reports I've read, with the only average area being depreciation.

So far we haven't bought yet, and are actually enjoying the search process. Currently we've driven 7 different makes (Audi, Aura, WV, Nissan, Lexus, Honda, and Toyota) and all have their pluses and minuses. We'll probably look at a couple more and then figure out what to do.

With the economy being questionable dealers have to be at least a little worried about getting stuck with cars. It seems everyone is offering some kind of special financing, and most prices seem a lot closer to invoice than MSRP. With so many competitive models out there, and more on the way you should be able to get a good deal on just about any car out there.

Again, just my opinion on the matter.

fw1 · July 2001

Folks,

I am in a very difficult situation. My wife and I need to buy a new car very soon. Right now, we are considering Honda Accord EX with V6 engine and Toyota Carry EL with V6 engine.

I checked with several web sites and many of them suggested the price should be just couple hundred dollars over the invoice price. Some of you may know that Toyota is offering $1,000.00 rebate for all Carry models and $1,500.00 for Collector Edition. I just got an offer from a dealer who is willing to sell their Carry – collector edition at the invoice price that is $25,152.00 plus tax and license fee. And I will still get a $1,500.00 rebate. If I am not wrong, I think that is included the leather seat/moon roof etc. On the other hands the Accord is about $23,055.00 so they are about the same price and I really don’I know which one should go for!

Though I never own a Honda or a Toyota before but I know both of them are good car. I have no idea which one will cost more for the maintenance in the future. Also, I am not sure why Toyota can offers a 5 years/60,000 miles Powertrain warranty while Honda offers a 3year/36,000 miles Powertrain warranty only. Does it mean that the Toyota is more reliable than Honda? Can anyone offer some suggestions to help me decide?

ripinrocket · July 2001

I had a rental Camry LE 4-cylinder out in California and Las Vegas over the weekend. I put about 300 miles on it driving from LA to Vegas and in and around Vegas for about 2 days.

Compared to my Accord EX V6 coupe and I see some pro's and con's between both cars.

Pros of Camry:
even in 4-cylinder form, auto transmission shifts smoother.
the ride is more luxurious. Less road noise comes in compared to my 2K Accord. And bumps are handled much better.
-The interior quality is better(not styling), the overall material quality is better, I mean. the top of the dash on my Accord is rock-hard, the Camry has soft vinyl top dash.
-no rattles/creaks.

Cons of Camry vs. Accord:
-Camry is not as good handling as Accord
-The interior styling of Camry is not as nice as Accord. Same with exterior.
-The seats on the Accord are more comfortable & supportive, at least to me.
-The steering is firmer and more road feel is felt in the Accord.

thai357 · July 2001

The Accords have a reputation that is misleading. I personally own a 94' Accord, My brother owns a 95' Accord and my Father owns a 93' Accord. They all have the exact same characteristics good and bad. Quality they are just as good as Camrys. Engine, lasts as long as Camrys, but very noisy. Transmission is harsh when shifting, the 94-present 4-cyl tyranny whines and stall when shifting until the gears catches a few seconds later after the tachometer approaches 4000+ rpm. This is a crappy engineering problem that Honda refuses to recognize. Honda uses cheap plastics in its Accords from door handles to cup holder to more importantly, the bumpers which are always falling off. The worst part about the Accords was the rear main engine seals that would always slip out and dumping all of the engine oil onto the streets. This has been recently recalled after I had my engine burned out by my wife because the oil light did not come on until it was too late. On the new engine this also occurred, but the light came on and my wife was able to pull over and have the car towed to a garage. Together this has costed us over $4000. We now have joined AAA just for the purpose of our wonderful Accord. All of the Accords we own idles rough and is noisy at all speeds. Lastly the Accords burns more gas (15 city-22Hwy) than a friends 4-Runner.
In addition I own a 90'Camry which has 250K miles and is as quiet as when new. Gets 27mpg city and 33mpg Hwy. Idles as new. And drives as quietly and smoothly as my 2001 Camry V6. My brother also has a 91' Camry with the same characteristics as mine except his has only 180K miles.
With three Accords and three Camrys in the family, I believe I can say without any hint of bias- I believe that the Camry is a better vehicle. The Accord is a good car compared to any other, but when put up against Toyota, Honda seems to take some obvious short cuts. First year or two Accords will be equal to Camrys but in latter years it will not hold up quite as a Camry.
The reasons we bought our Accords was that we thought the Accords were equal to Camrys. But has a much more sporty feel to them which is also why they have much worse gas mileage than even a rough Camry ever would. They have a nice style and decent look to them. Accords was always a better handling and sportier car but to offer them as an equal to a Camry is just wrong. My only explanation as to why Hondas has a better resale value is mainly because Honda does not sell them as fleet vehicles for commercial purposes, and maybe there are more Toyota Camrys around which creates a buyers market for Camrys; lowering their value just a bit.
To sum it up, I will probably not buy another Accord. My brother and father have also expressed negative feelings and disdain towards Honda Accords; my brother mainly the whining and stalling transmission; and my father the lousy mileage. They also no longer wish to purchase another Accord. If there is anything really good to say about my Accord besides the sporty feels to them is that when I finally trade it in this winter(not my 90' Camry-will keep it til it dies because it drives well), the higher resale value will be my last of the few positives I can say for this car. Hopefully the newer model will bode fairer than the previous models. But comparing the 2001' Camry Le V6 to the Accord SE V6 I still find the Camry a better value and higher quality. But if you decide the Accords are for you then be happy because you can do far worse.

ripinrocket · July 2001

thai357,

Overall, Accord's are really reliable. It's too bad you got a Accord that gets 15mpg/22mpg and one that has defects. I know my V6 gets at least 20 in city driving and alot better on the highway. Plus, overall, Accords are very reliable and high quality. I would tend to agree though that Toyota is better in quality & engineering.

sobers · July 2001

I think your experience is not common! My 2000 SE gets 22 City(1 less than EPA) & 32 highway (2 better than EPA).

Regarding quality & reliability: Accord & Camry are pretty much the same. Resale value Accord has an upper hand due to care that Honda takes not selling them to fleet in a bunch like Toyota. The fact that 98 Camry LE with 35K miles has around the same Edmunds TMV(private party) tells something. Camry also offers extravagant rebates which honda has NEVER offered on Accords/Civics. (Dealer incentives are smart move by Honda which takes care of the pricing according to the market)

Thai357, just replace Accord with Camry in your post & you have got the post of some other person!

Current Accord 4 cyl is much better car mechanicaly than the Camry 4 cyl & V6 are comparable in technilogy but accord is a better value.

fw1 · July 2001

I just read an article saying 91octane gasoline is required in order to get the 20/28 mileage from the Camry V6 model. Is it true? Is it stated in the owner handbook? How about the Accord V6 engine? Any ideas?

I just test drive the Accord and Camry the other day, I personally like the Accord for the better handling. I found the steering wheel of Camry is too light but according to the sale person I should feel the steering wheel tighter as the car goes faster.

By the way, does anyone know of any websites where I can find the original MSRP of an old car?

thai357 · July 2001

Guys, I know the Accords in general are very good quality vehicles. And they are just as reliable as the Camrys. But my family and I have three of them and disregarding my problems with the rear main seals, they all exhibit the same terrible characteristics. Let me reiterate: they all have terrible gas mileage, they all idle very rough-compared to Camrys(now they may just be normal or highly refined compared to a domestic car of same age, but to a Camry; definately not in the same class), they all suffer same cheap problems-the bumpers are attached by a very poor design, terrible transmission(stalling, whining, takes awhile to kick in), the poor design of the rear struts that would pretty much total the car if you were to get hit in the rear side panel( it seems the struts were an afterthought forgotten initially by their engineers), and they are noisy inside when at any speeds. Where are the value in all of this, because I fail to see it when compared to the Camrys. My 94' Accords with the new engine which has only 75K miles on it, is idling at 1000 rpm but the whole car shakes terribly. Now I only mention this about the 94' due to its low mileage, but all our other Accords does the same thing. When the car is on you know it because your teeth rattles so much!
This is happening to three Accords of diferent years exhibiting the same performance and problems has to tell you something. Now you can try to claim that I don't know how to take care of my cars. But with a Camry that has 250,000 miles that causes you to double crank at times because you can't tell if its running, I must be doing something right. Also I will include that I take better care of my Hondas because it is my only car that gets to see its dealership periodically for maintenance. My Camry-gas and go primarily and a normal wear and tear rate on its factory parts that is above normal! But despite all these shortcomings I will still trust my Honda to make a road trip across country with its problems.
The Camrys cost more initially but the Honda Accord sells for five to ten percent more used; so all in all the cost is just about the same. I believe that is a resonable extrapolation that any reasonable person can conclude. And please, I've seen Honda discount their cars plenty of times, just like Toyota is doing now with the coming of the new model. But if anyone is looking for a used car the Camry will last them much longer and in better style with less hassle. And for less to boot!
Listen, I totally agree the Accord is a nice ride brand new but it doesn't have the longevity of the Camrys. This may also be due to the reason that since the Accords are billed as more of a sport sedan it attracts a younger crowd that drives it like such. And when you design a car that maximizes its engine output by delivering its maximum torque and horsepower at extreme rpm, it will only cause it to wear and tear much faster.All this will compund and exacerbate the Accord's problems.
My "experience not common", please sobers, you are insulting my intelligence. I helped many a friends to buy a second hand car and every used Accord with over 125K miles exhibits the same persistent problems." Problems" may be too strong of a word because they do run without a hitch. They just lack the sense of its quality when new.
If you are looking for a sedan that is extremely reliable, has all the comforts for day to day use and will age gracefully. Maintaining a high resale value should you ever be short on funds(heaven forbid); and has all the configurations and ammenities that will satisfy and transcend even the most discerning of tastes, you can do no better at this time by chosing the inveterate Camry.
If I were to be pressed for a second choice, I would at this point chose the Maxima second and the Accord third. But if I had the fiduciary surplus I would rather go the Lexus/Acura/BMW route.
Now all this is not to imply that the Camry is without problems. It has suffered some minor quality problem increase as with any import that are assembled in America. But once you have suffered the misaligned door, the rattle inside the door due to a bolt left behind by an unscrupulous worker, and such problems you will soon realize that the Camry is a very competent sedan. And that is the exact reason I am on my second Camry, and have bought my first and last Accord. Sorry to bore everyone with the fervent ramblings of a dissapointed/pleased owner of the two cars of topic.

FW1; regarding the higher octane gas; it will boost you engine performance and output to the advertised levels. From what I understand of higher octance gas is that it has a higher combustion characteristic that will allow it to offer more power. But it does at a higher cost of efficiency and will lower your mpg if your engine is not designed for it. Also the benefit is that you get gasoline with more detergents that help cleans your injectors counteracting the incomplete combustion. Unfortunately most cars are not design to burn fuel at this higher rate and will do so inefficiently and will result in uncomplete combustion that will foul the injectors and engine, more. Did you get that? In summary your V6 Camry will benefit from higher octane gas because it is designed to do so. But if you prefer to use 87/89 octane fuel, feel free. It won't do any harm, neither will the 93 octane at the other end of the spectrum.

jsmiller · July 2001

I hope that my new Accord (an LX) never gets the bad gas mileage (15/22) posted by Thai357. I would think that something was seriously wrong if the highway mileage was that bad.
I passed my '87 4-speed DX on to my daughter two weeks ago. That car consistently got 40-44 mpg on steady highway driving (it was EPA rated at 34). I measured 42 mpg last Feb. in a trip that included some driving in Chicago.
The first measurements on the new one showed 22mpg city and 32 mpg highway. I was quite satisfied with that, given that it is an automatic and considerably larger, heavier and more powerful than the '87 Accord. The '87 Accord got about the same city mileage; anywhere from 18 to 25 mpg. It varies so much depending on number of stops, length of trips, outside temperature, etc. Every car, of course, gets zero mpg at the stop light.

sunshine60105 · July 2001

They didn't say anything about the remodeling for the 2002 Camry because they want the people to buy the 2001's.. I think it's pretty stupid to deny that there's not gonna be a change because everyone is gonna clearly see it when one's on the road...

Chow!

anselmo1 · July 2001

I would wait at least a year before I would buy the new Camry. Let Toyota work the little bugs out of the new model before you make the purchase.

sobers · July 2001

I don't have patience to read such a long post. everybody know that Camry/Accord are the same when it comes to reliability & quality. Accord is priced lesser by not much just $700 with same equipement. In that Camry offers full size spare & better Audio. Also Toyota gives rebates/incentives on Camrys which Honda is not doing. Also Camry fleet/rental sales are too high compared to Accord which makes resale in first 3-4 years almost Non-Toyota like !! Yur post more seems like Toyota salesperson than actual consumer.

The difference between camry/Accord is the sportiness & Quiteness/smoother ride & better resael of accord. Eventhoug I am Honda fan, I would say that camry/accord are the same when it comes to troublefree experience & reliability.

thai357 · July 2001

I must commend you on being a very astute fellow. Buy all of my Camrys please! So I would have room for the 2002's. ; )
Reliability-Accord is just about on par with Camrys. Quality-I beg to differ. Twelve years of poorly engineered transmissions is just to blatant. The cost difference between new equally equipped Accords and Camry is more closer to $1500 from what I've seen. And the resale of Camrys is just $500-700 less than Accords. Only because there are usually more used Camrys for sale. You can attribute this to either the longevity reliability of Camrys or you can assume this is due to all the commercial stock getting reintroduce to the market. I kind of like the latter explanation myself. : ) Good luck to you sobers and your poor, poor, Accord. Be happy that you didn't buy a Taurus!

venus537 · July 2001

"The cost difference between new equally equipped Accords and Camry is more closer to $1500 from what I've seen"

So why in the hell get a Camry? Yah, the Camry has a better overall transmission. But the Accord's is more responsive when driving down a curvy country road. And don't even compare the Accord's manual transmission with the Camry's tranny. I know this is subjective, but the Accord's interior is so much better. There's no denying the Camry is an excellent car, but a $1500 difference. I guess your priority for a quiet smooth, but boring ride has to be pretty high. It's not like the Accord feels like a go-kart to achieve its sportier ride.

sobers · July 2001

Your posts are contradicting !! Accord & Camry difference on 4 cyl (invoice) is about $715. Now with 2001s it is around 650. They are priced almost the same. About quality, Accord is same as camry. Hardly any difference & Accord uses better technology on 4 cyl than current Camry!

Corolla has a vvti engine but Camry 4 cyl doesn't!
Accord has 150hp engine which runs 9.0 Sec on Automatic trannys which is atleast 1.5-2.0 seconds faster than the 4 cyl camry !! Honda automatics were a bit abrupt/fast shifting in early 90s but from 98+ there is hardly a difference between them. 98+ transmissions are on par with toyotas. My friend had 90 Accord Ex with 156 miles on original Auto transmission !! Which explains the logevity of Accords !

Accord employs better chassis dynamics than camry & much better suspension setup. Accord has always been better selling than Camry. Except for 1999, Accord outsold Camry and Turus to DIRECT Consumers! It is just because of the rental sales Toyota is able to keep Camry #1. This year even that is not happening. Honda started with 3.9 APr this year & without rental sales it is leading Camry by 18000 units in first six months of 2001 !!

Resale: Camry new costs 715 to 1500 depending on which one you buy (I4/V6) & is worth atleast 1000-1500 less than Accord after 2/3 years ! That means it looses atleast $2500 more than Accord !!

It makes me really happy that I got 2000 Accord SE which currently has 10750 miles & running like when I drove off the lot !! There is hardly any wear on the car after 1 year !! It is the best car for the money ! Period.

Oh I forgto two more points:

Accord Steering is much better conncected & tracks in straight line(highway) like a dream. It also helps in winter due to feedback it offers.

Visibility: Accord beats camry on visibility hands down. It has much better(best in class) visbility. Almost a panoramic front view.

Also Accord is much better controlled & stable at higher speeds & less suseptible to cross-winds.
Camry's suspension bottoms out on some of the road in our area. (drove a lot of Hertz Camrys)

ripinrocket · July 2001

sobers,

As I said in a previous post, I rented a Camry 4-banger about 2 weekends ago from LA to Las vegas. by far, the Camry has a better transmission. Smoother shifting & more responsive to throttle inputs. I've driven V6 Camry's before also, and the same story. Toyota still builds better transmissions.

Is their a test that is available which says Accord has best in class visibility? Honestly, I find the visibility worse than alot of other cars I've driven. The A-pillar is poorly shaped and thick, and the coupe has a high rear end which impedes rearward visibility.

Crosswinds, both are about the same. My coupe gets thrown around a bit on the open highway in light cross winds, and the Camry was getting thrown around about the same in light winds.

Whether or not the Accord employs a better suspension setup is dependant on what you are lookin for. The Camry is tailored more towards luxury. To that extent, it has a softer, plusher ride that gives up some handling. And the Accord is tuned more for handling and less for a cushy plush ride.

And Accords do last long, but you make it seem as though Camry's don't. Which would be false.

sobers · July 2001

I would never doubt Camry tyransmission ...it is butter smooth & silky !! I just wanted to say that Honda has come a long way from late 80s to early 90s with 98 generation Accord & 2001 Civic.
The Honda automatics were as durable & reliable as toyotas in the past but were abrupt/fast shifting. Now they have softened them up with the later generations. Still I would rate toyota automatic better than Honda.

Visibility is VAST when it comes to Accord/Ody/MDX/TL/RL. The windsheild is EXPANSIVE & much bigger than Camry. Also side windows are bigger than Camry...resulting in more glassy/airy cabin. Camry has a bigger blind spot than Accord.

Suspension: Do you know that bones keep optimun tyre contact of trade with road ? It results in even wear at all the ends (ofcourse for a front wheel drive front tyres are going to take more than rear ones). Thats teh reason Accord's Mechelin last atleast 45+ k miles where as Camry's tyres last about 32-33K miles.

Durability: I would never doubt Toyotas on that. They just don't die (same as Hondas) Camry/Corollas are the kings of durability, given that they are not abused at rental lots !

sobers · July 2001

which is much better on current Accord than the Camry. Toyota also needs to work on the resale thing. Rental sales will hurt them in long turm. The person who trades 3 year old Camry will surely think of difference of $2500 (on 4cyl, more on V6) over Accord !
That means if you got an Accord instead of Camry you could step up to better car next time you go in market as you get better $$ for your Accord!

I was shocked when I saw 98 Civic LX (34kmiles) priced same as 98 Camry LE(4cyl) with 35k miles!!
Even on Edmunds they are priced very close.

I am helping a lot of friends buying 2-3 year old used cars!

thai357 · July 2001

Hey! Please don't get upset over this. I am only stating my opinion and views. Like I have said I owned an Accord myself and with two more in the family. My problems and objections are compiled through comments from friends that own current model Accords and through personal experience. I hope you did not percieve that I have elucidated my opinions through magazines. Rather it was from concrete hands on experience. I will disregard the fact that you stated your experience was mostly based on rentals, a couple of times.
Someone else only assumed, even after my lengthy description on why I do not think Accords earns their reputation, that I base my cars on a comfortable ride, it would also seem fair to assume that you might have based your cars on the "panaramic views" offered by the Accord. Both views are assinine. If I wanted such I would of been better served with a Lincoln Town car and you should of gotten a motor cycle.
Regarding the transmission, I still am dismayed that rather then rifining it they prefer to increase HP. They have completly disregarded any of their owners comments and complaints for eight to ten years. And instead you got more power. Don't misunderstand me, its nice to have more power. Why couldn't they do both? The extra 14 HP will get you an extra 5 mph at max speed. and more importanly, however; is the torque which is rated at 152pd/ft versus the Camry's 150pd/ft. Hardly a difference off the line.
Suspension is just about the same . Accord too tight, Camry too soft. But I do find fault with the idiotic design flaw of the rear struts. Take a look for youself the way it has to bend around the tire. Defiately poor planning. Cost of a new Accord is only less about $700, you are correct. So you found one deluded Civic owner. I would not take that example for being the norm, and you know better than that. I can only guess that in your excitement you needed that to strengthen your argument. The Civic owner probably got reamed when purchasing it and want to unload with as little loss as possible. Or the Camry owner probably did something to the car or is motivated by circumstance. I bet I can a few used Corrollas that would cost more than an Accord used. But I would be excercising a terrible gross misjudgement if I were to accept that as the norm.
The tires are all subjective. 1.0-2.0 faster than the Camry? How zero to sixty? Off the line? Please read above regarding Torque. But your time difference is subjective at best as with many of your observation and I suppose the same goes for some of my views. Since you do not like to read long posts I will end right here. Being a biochemist I am very comfortable a writing at length due to reports that I need to compile regularly. And as Sunshine wrote-CHOW! (Ciao')

ripinrocket · July 2001

"Visibility is VAST when it comes to Accord/Ody/MDX/TL/RL." YOu have all of these cars? spent vast amounts of time in all of the above?

The Accords visibility is still pathetic, no matter which way you cut it, IMO. And ultimately the Camry's is better because of better shaped A-pillars and a lower rear decklid.

Suspension: Again, didn't I say in the last post that both cars are designed for different purposes. The Camry is designed for a plusher, smoother, posher ride and in turn it doesn't handle as great while Accord is tuned for sportier handling but for firmer and less smooth ride.

Want to talk about rattles and other quality issues differences between the Accord & Camry?

-List of 98+Accord problems:
-V6 transmissions-torque converters, rough shifting.
- rattles in dash & rear deck, from sunroof.

The interior *looks* better. The Camry's interior is very bland and blah. but the Camry interior has much better interior material. the leather is better in leather equipped cars, and overall vinyl & dash materials are of better quality.

sobers · July 2001

No Civic & Camry resale is a valid case. It is from Edmunds Trade-in/private party price only. Not from my friend etc. Have a look at the edmund so check Accord vs Camry price on 98 model with 35K miles & you will get it. Also check Civic vs Camry resale for the same 98 model Le vs Lx.

0-60mph Accord 4cyl is 9.0 Sec whereas Camry is 10.5 to 11 seconds. The reason is Accord is more revv happy & the Vtec point (4000RPM) can be reached VERY easily.

You know what there is a vertical split between Camry & Accord owners. I respect their choice, somebody likes Camry..somebody likes Accord....

I am just got into debate due to Toyota Salesman like statements that Camry is better in relibility & quality etc.....Perhaps Accord retains better value becaus eit is inferior to Camry in qulity & reliability/durablity -:))

ripinrocket · July 2001

sobers,

I'm sure Honda salespeople say Accords are more reliable & higher quality also than Camry. I do not see you criticizing Honda salespeople.

Camry 0-60 10.5 seconds. huh. I haven't seen a time that slow for the Camry 4-cylinder.

sobers · July 2001

10.5 seconds is the fastest time I have seen on the Camry 4 cyl !

Look Edmunds has it 11.1 Seconds for 2000 Camry !!!

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/toyota/camry/4drlesedan/specs.html?id=lin0066

Get it now ????

I never said that Hondas are more reliable or durable than Toyotas, I said they are almost equal & very close....But somebody on this group did say that Toyotas are more durable !! )

thai357 · July 2001

You have gotten the prices thing down to a science! Unfortunately you only bothered to check one source. Which obviously seems to have the largest price spread. I would urge you to check an even more reputable source, say......KELLY's BLUE BOOK, you would probably find that source more accurate, since that is what, *ahem*; we dealers use. They list price ranges for each car. And since I don't like to pay high prices I only noted the low price of said 1998' vehicles.

Camry LE-----$9300
Accord LX----- 9900
Civic LX-------- 7950
Corolla LE---- 7200

See, I too can play the numbers game. And I off course chose to quote the most beneficial numbers, too me anyways.

Sobers; I didn't intend to argue with you the exact prices of new and used Accords and Camrys. I only wanted to state the reasons why I think the Accord has yet to prove itself, worthy of being compared to the Camrys. In the process I got to expound all the dubious distinctions of the Accords, the Accords that I know anyways. After reading my many explanations above of why and how I would chose to rate a car it seems you want to tell me that my personal views are wrong. If I didn't like my Accords due to their terrible transmission, you chime "...but they cost less and resale higher". I say my Accords are rough after a few years and are noisy inside, again you say"...but they cost less and resale higher". I say.....well, you get the idea. Everything I've stated are experiences and after hearing from all my friends who owns Accords, I tend to believe them as facts. Losing a few hundreds up front and a few hundreds from the backend does little to sway the argument that Camrys are ahead of Accords. If we tally all the positives, and all the negatives of the two cars the Camry will still be ahead. I like to keep my cars forever except for the reasons stated above in previous posts, which the Accords seems to excel in.

Since Toyota has sold tens of millions of Camrys and Honda has done the same with the Accords, 10 to 20 thousands difference in sale is of little importance. Therefore sales numbers has little bearing in this argument. If it did then I would guess that you bought a Taurus in 1990. All the reasons I believe I should pick a Camry over an Accord may be different from other people, which shows why Accords retains a slightly higher resale value. What does that tell us: people hold other factors more important than I would. Sporty ride for one example. Big deal. We have already established the Camry having a superior transmission, more reliable-see rear main seals in above posts, a better gas mileage, a tighter interior-does not creak, made of better interior materials, a quieter interior, a quieter engine, a smoother engine, lacks the dangerous rear strut design, and especially important-easy to maintain personally (one big reason why my Accords needs to see its technician, for oil changes), ages much better, holding its new car feel longer, and most important-I like em better. But others don't hold these qualities as dear as I do and so used Accords cost more. But then don't forget what I have mentioned about two and three year old Camrys that floods the market from commercial sectors. Also I would like to point out that you have a habit of only mentioning late model used Camrys and Accords. I can only surmise that this is due to the bottoming out of the price difference of the two as more years past which would go against your argument.

Your quote on the acceleration time of Accords versus the Camrys is quite optimistic and ambitious to say the least. But I shall let you win that one,because it is of little value to me, nor do I care enough. I am sorry if this is getting a bit long, but I'm sure you will read it in its entirety because I get the sense that you seem to feel very passionate about this argument. That is fine, it is nice that you find Accords worth while. But Please don't just diregard all the other issues regarding Accords. You like to save $1000-2000 rather than buying a Camry where I don't mind spending a bit more and having my investment retain its quality throughout my owner ship. Eventhough in resale, they are worth a tad bit less when compared to its biggest competitor. BMW has a lower resale value than Lexus comparetively. I doesn't mean that much if you are happy with your purchase and it still runs years from now. Thanks for opening my eyes about the resale differences though.

camryfan · July 2001

camryfan · July 2001

Cheaper? --- Accord;
Better quality, better reliability and a better car? --- Camry!!!

thai357 · July 2001

As Camry fan in so many words and ever so eloquently puts it: Cheaper? --- Accord;
Better quality, better reliability and a better car? --- Camry!!!
That's about as definitive an answer as anybody can Truthfully and honestly say. Camryfan where have you been the last couple of days, you could of saved me from a couple of pages of typing!
Sobers after this you must admit defeat. I mean, how can any sane person deny and refute such an overwhelming testimonial. I think I can hear your last wheezing breath. We'll never forget cha! LOL!

thai357 · July 2001

I appreciate your candid and objective comments. My personal take on the Accords is that I am very pleased that Accords hold their value even after all their shortcommings. I will benefit in two ways. First, when I unload my Accord I will get more for it. Who can argue with that! Second, it will ultimately boost up the Camry resale value if I should ever find anyone that wants my 250k mile Camry more than I do. Accords are decent cars, but I just can't get over the rediculous transmission and the thousands of dollars that I' ve sunk into mine due to the rear main seals. I hope yours is treating you well. You also said that your V6 Accord has rough shifting, if that is true then I am even more annoyed with Honda. Even domestic and Korean cars shift better than their transmission. We didn't pay prime dollars for second rate engineering. I have driven many old Accords amd Camrys, and the fact is: as Accords get old their engines gets loud and the car shakes in an un-Honda-like manner. Good luck to you!

maxamillion1 · July 2001

I think that the Accord is an all around SLIGHTLY better car, just about every magazine will say that the Accord is better than the Camry, sans Consumer Reports. The Accord has better road feel, a little less spartan interior, and has slightly better styling in my opinion. When you Compare the 4 cylinder models, which are the best seller of both, the Accord outshines the Camry in performance. My family has had 6 Accords in all, my mother had 2 (1984,1992), Grandma had 2(1985, 1991) and my aunt had 2 (1989, 1990). They all were great cars; my neighbors love Camrys, about 5 people in my neighborhood have had a Camry. Both cars are great, the Camry may use slightly better interior materials in the newer models than the Accord, but both are equally reliable, The Camry just a little more so. The transmissions my shift a little rough, but it actually never bother any of my family members (3 of the Accords were 5 speed manuals).

Now that I am in the market for a new car, I am considering just about every midsize to near-luxury car under the U.S sun. Camry and Accord are both on the list.

At least we are not comparing the Taurus in this comparison, it outsold both the Accord and Camry this month, but it ain't the better car IMO.

maxamillion1 · July 2001

In the latest Motortrend, the Accord EX ULEV was picked as the best Midsized sedan for $25,000. They call the Accord the benchmark of the Class, and so does Car and Driver, the Accord is the longest running car on the Ten Best List. I don't know about next year, when the new Camry is available, which is really interesting to me.

thai357 · July 2001

When cars critics write articles and test out new cars they tend to critique mainly superficial categories. They place importance on the here and now. Sure the Accord may rate with a better more technology advance engine. But that is only due to the vvti. Underneath it is the same engine used since 1994 models. When comparing just the core engine, it is no more advance than the camry. Both incidentally is years ahead of any domestic car. Actually I believe the Camry's engine is more refine! For all the reason stated previously above. The other various categories includes styling, outside and inside. Sure the Accord won, but not by much. More importantly however, is how the cars hold up over the years of use. This is not factored into the equation. I can only attest to my own experience, which is probably much informative and in depth than any critics can claim. They all probably drive Cadillacs and BMWs. Go to a used car lot and look at early to mid 90's Accords and Camrys. Then tell me which has a quieter engine, idles smoother, rides better, interior held up better, which has a much quieter interior, smooth transmission, and which transmission whines and stalls when take you foot of the accelerator to brake and the resume. Go on a test drive, hit a bump, see which has parts that rattles more. You'd be surprise. I too have three Accords in the family. Now you will only experience from a test drive. I've had mine for seven years, this is in addition to all the other problems that I have enumerated many times above.

Everyone, I agree the Accords will win any contest that is based a certian style or even first impressions if the categories are tailored for it. The Camry may not win any beauty contest but everything done to it with stay in the same pristine condition much longer than the gimmicky Accord.

I really would like to hear a substantive argument why Accords are better than Camrys. Please no more Voted #1 this or that. No more "vast visibility". I want to hear chronoc problems of Camrys versus Accords. No more subjective comments Please!

Sorry for writing to much today, I'm waiting to go to a wedding and have some time to kill. See Ya!

sobers · July 2001

First of all somebody came in to say Camry is better & you started saying I lost the defeat. You have such a nice argument !! Cool !!!

Every car magazine rates accords better than Camry ==> You don't count it !

Accord 4 cyl offers better performance than 4 cyl camry ==> You don't count it !

Accord is atleast 700 bucks less than camry you don;t count it.

Honda takes care of resale better ==> You don;t count it !!

BTW : Dealers use NADA book & NOT KBB....
NADA has 11,500 on 98 Camry LE with 40K miles !!
which almost same as 98 Civic with similar miles except for a few grands.

There are too many Camrys & Corollas seating out there in Rental lots... === You don't count it!

Accord has better visibility than Camry ==> You don't count it!

Accord has much better resale than Camry ==> You don't count it!

Accord has been over MANY/MANy years outsells camry to direct consumers==> You don't count it !!
Even though there are thousands of repeat buyers for accords over the years ==> You don't count it.

Every car magazine does surveys & on every survey Accord comes in top ten & well above Camry (recent Autoweek) ==> You won't count it !!

Accord's interior is much better than Camry's==> You don't count it.

Accord offered VTEC engine from 94 on EX & LX/EX on 98+ but Camry doesn't (even low buck corolla offers it) But again you won't count it.

Accord outruns camry 0-60 by atleast 1.5 to 2 sceconds 0-60 ==> That is not imp for you !!

Accord is more spacious ==> Doesn't count !!

You don't want to hear any magazine's review. Even mundane test driving Autowordweekly (now monthly) rated Accord better than Camry...doesn't count.

IMP: WHICH BACK STRUT design you talk about ?? Accord is rated as well as camry for safety/crash tests.... FROM WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFO ?? It is just rediculous !!

I wouldn't rate Accord's sportyness as a advantage over Camrys quiteness. This is the diff between these two cars. Accord is more involving with feedback thru supension/steering & Camry is more isolating. So this basic difference is personal, for you its camry for me its Accord....

I didnot buy Accord because it was less costly. When I got my Accord Camry had rebate of 1000 bucks !! I got Accord because I liked it better.

I have driven rental Camrys extensively, 2 times I have driven it 750 miles to-fro Niaraga Falls!!

Two times 600 miles to South Dakota from Minneapolis & coutless 3 hour drives (before I purchased my Accord) Had a old-used car (91 Corolla) so had to rent frequently.

Even 2001 Accord offeres 2 stage Airbags with 7 sensors which even Lexus ES300 doesn't offer..! Let alone the camry ! (could be standrd in 2002 camry though!)

sobers · July 2001

"When cars critics write articles and test out new cars they tend to critique mainly superficial categories. They place importance on the here and now. "

Keep them coming man...these statements are very entertaing.

Also you mean so say my friend sold his MY90 with more than 155k miles for $3000 because it idles rought, whines, stalls etc etc etc ????

As I said keep them coming....!!! I also ride many times in 91 DX/LX which my friends got 1 year ago for $4400 !! They don't do all these things you said...only regular maintenance thus far.

As I said, Camry/Accord are at the same level when it comes to durability & reliability. They have different phylosophy. Camry tuned more towards older crowds..Hondas in general tuned towards younger crowds...giving importance to handling than smoothness (which don't go together...Atleast in this price range)

thai357 · July 2001

Maybe then you can properly convey what ever it is you are saying, rather than for me to try and second guess you. Perhaps this is where all the misunderstanding occurs. Maybe you do believe that Accords are second rate, but with all your incoherent typing and mispelling I really can't tell.(Just kidding-really!)

"First of all somebody came in to say Camry is better & you started saying I lost the defeat. You have such a nice argument !! Cool !!!"

Sobers anyone reading this can see the humor that I alludded to. I just though it was funny the way Camrylover chimed in. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. Next time I promise to spell everything out to you before making anymore attempts with jocularity.(just kidding)

Sure Accords won all those beauty contests recently, this is only because Accords were remodeled most recently! Even still the Accords won by very small margins. Usually due to your highly acclaim "expansive visibility". Your points above are still based on subjective views. The vvti only came on the EX in 94' and then both LX/EX in 98'. Big deal, the 2002 Camry will have it and it wil be more improved than the Accords and much smoother with more power. But the previous Camrys have more than enough power and does not suffer because it lack 14HP less than the Accord. What a joke! VVTI and still only increased 14 HP and 2pd/ft of torque. For your information the 0-60 is probably less than 1second difference which is attributed to the faster rougher shifting of the Accord. I'll take the smooth Camry anyday. It offers the best compromise of all the important features. I don't need a sport sedan.

My main contention with Accords is what occurs after a couple years of ownership. And that has been expounded at length in above posts. Sobers, I implore you to take some time and reread my posts. Those are my experiences with three Accords, 93', 94' and 95! And my perceptions. If you find that they threaten your conception of your Accord, just keep telling youself that yours is different from all the other Accords on the road. (More jocularity-not!)

Your friend bought a 91 Accord for $4400, not much of a friend are you. It is little wonder he bought it, with your brainwashing and frequent attempts to turn him from a used Camry buyer to an Accord buyer, he probably did it to keep you quiet. He probably never even test drove a Camry. The Accords probably sounded and drove like heaven compared the the used Taurus you had him test drive.(another attempt with jocularity)

Oh by the way, some of the above is written with a humorous tone! Thaks! (Thats "thanks" to everyone else, and just "thaks" to sobers)(more joking)

On a more serious note: Your posts and my posts has far exceeded its usefulness. Therefore I will not engage with this personal bantering with you any longer. Thanks for your time. (I really do mean that.)

sobers · July 2001

is all about demand & supply. One more frined got a 92 Camry XLE with 126,000 miles for $4000. Drives very good & smooth. Ac still runs great! Another one got 99 Camry LE with vp(not sure, power driver seat, keyless, abs) 22K miles for 13700!

Now, that tells me that Accord though better than camry when it comes to resale in first 3-5 years, they are close enough after 7-8 years (ofcourse camry still costs more upfront)

Thai357, I don't mind you attempt at humor but frankly you are not very good at it.

Examples: One more guy got a 91 Dx(power windows, cntre locking etc) Camry with 112000 miles for $3000 (needed $600 work, front struts replacement)

Similar Accord cost for my friend on 90 Dx accord (manual windows) was $4000 (was in good condition)

So the resale seemed in favor of accord (atleast where I am located) by $500-$600. with accord having less standard equipement.

Thai357, I wouldn't want my friend to pay a dime more than the best deal we could get. I was not involved in these deals as such. But I do advise them to get used Accord/Camry (Our guys don't even consider Taurus!!) for better ownership experience. Also, there are two other cars I would test drive if I don't get accord next time...Maxima(or ne Altima) & Camry.

Again, I would like to stress that I did not jump on this discussion group with comments against Camry but only responded to your manipulative comments about Accord.

& for tha last time, 0-60mph times, interior room, outward visibility, seat comfort, Engine power-technology, Good value are NOT subjective.
-:)) These are nothing but the objective points.

Also, you did not offer any explanation about the rear-strut 'problem' of yours with Accord ??

What struts in the rear of Accord make it unsafe ?
You also made a statement that Honda Accord is under-engineered vehicle !! God.....help me..

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles