Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry



  • leomortleomort Posts: 451
    and what's wrong with us biologist? ;)

  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    The 4 cylinder manual tranny isn't designed to handle that the higher stress of the more powerful V6 engine. Besides, the power output and hence the gear ratio would be totally different between the two engines. So a new 5-spd or at least a redesigned/reinforced manual would be needed if Honda wanted to have a manual for the V6.


    Nothing wrong being a biologist. My undergrad is actually in Molecular Bio. But I have SEEN the light. ;) Become a chemist today (I'm just kidding), the job market is hot right now.
  • The Honda Prelude already puts out about 200 hp and is available in a manual. There was also the older Acura Legend's 6-speed manual trans available (which had a power/torque output way over the Accord's, I might add). I do not think that it would be hard to adapt that for the Accord V6.

    But I would presume, that a viable market does not exist for a manual transmission for the Accord V6. A few enthusiasts might be persuaded to go in for a manual, but the vast majority of the population, is inclined to go for an Automatic; and those are the people, Honda is targetting. I know of people who had a lot of trouble selling their cars, just because it had a manual transmission. Try to trade in a car with a manual transmission at a dealership, and you will know what I mean - they would drop the price by a couple of grand, just because the car has a manual (Tough for the dealer to sell).

  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    Possible the automatic only is emissions related? I know Toyota backed off the manual TT Supra a few years back for emissions reasons.
  • I believe every drivetrain combo must be separately crash- and smog- tested, costing the auto maker quite a bit per configuration. It's not just the loss of the car that costs bucks, but all of the ungodly paperwork and regulatory hoopla you have to deal with.
  • Hey wenyue and sobers,

    To answer your question, I am using this forum (and others) to aide me in my pre-owned car serch. I thought I'd weigh in to say the forum is a good tool. Reading about chronic transmission problems in a particular model year, early/late airbag deployment, electrical or other mechanical defects, etc., is helping me to narrow the field.

    Ive learnd more here than from Jack Gillis' pathetic reviews!! Yep, some of the feuding here is juvenile, but boys and their toys...

    Well, onward to the final purchase. Oh, if yer wondring what I hope to buy, don't get riled up when I tell you. Im down to a Legend LS sedan, Infiniti G20 (I like them, I really really like them), Audi 200, or Lexus ES250/300 - got a couple prospects with the right fit with my budget. Have considered Volvo 740/760 sedan because they run forever and are very safe - generally surpassing Toyota and Honda.

    In the SF Bay Area, the Cmrys and Accords Ive seen are pretty thrashed - hi miles and bad trannys. San Jose lots will say any car is in "great" shpe - and ask at or above Kelly bluebook. And people buy! Well, theres a sucker born every minute!

    I guess there are fine points to each. Obviously its a matter of personal prefrenec. Both are overrated, IMHO. So thats my story and Im sticking to it. May the best car win. Good luck.
  • My wife has a 98 XLE V-6 Camry we bought used for the purpose of a nice "luxury" car we can drive forever. The car is good, but I had an irritating warranty experience with front strut bushings(top I think). The dealer wouldn't replace even though there's a TSB out, said he couldn't hear, I told him when weather got colder they could, sure enough I took it in after warranty(40,000) and they replaced them without even driving it. It may helped that this was after the Ford Explorer lawsuits which I told my wife to mention, along with our new child. Why not fix it the first time? I drive my wife's old 1990 Acura Integra with 190,000 plus miles with only a rear wheelbearing repair and a new exhaust, even the clutch is original. And the service center is great, even put in expensive Freon for my wife for free a couple of summers ago.

    OK, next, we are looking for a car for my mom, Drove a used 2000 4 cyl. at a Toyota dealer that was JUNK. I have done all repair work on my "fun cars" (240Z, 340 Challenger, supercharged 95 Mustang) cars and may be a little sensitive but there was rattling suspension noise, exhaust leak, and something else. Next drove a new 2001 4 cyl. Camry LE that sounded and drove OK. Then drove a new 2001 4 cyl. EX Accord that I really liked and would get if I was in the market for that kind of car, except I would just get the LX. Then drove the V6 Accord LE which REALLY felt nose heavy, I preferred the 4 cyl. model.

    Oh well, just my .02 worth, no need to disagree as it's just my opinion.
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    I felt the same way when I test drove V6 Accord/Camry. FWD cars are as such nose-heavy which is made worse by extra weight that V6 has. I was giving a serious thought to 2000 Lx-V6 but ended with I4 SE. Both has 4.9APR that time (not EX-V6!) I guess V6 is great for straight line driving & freeways but is less fun than the I4 in twisties.
  • the entire weekend (business trip in Michigan with a couple days to visit my boys), and was once again impressed with the smoothness, quietness and comfort -- it is truly a wonderful family car for the average person. And while I, being the speed freak I am, would opt for the V6, the 4 had plenty of passing power and feels wuite brisk off the line. Let's face it -- this isn't a car to go raod racing in, but that's not what it was designed to do. The people who buy these cars are family people who need a good, dependable car with enough room, comfort and quality to meet their needs -- no more. Both the Accord and the Camry fulfill these criteria, and their differences simply give us a choice -- which I think is a good thing.
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    I agree 100%. Because of these two arch rivals consumers get very good cars at reasonable price
  • liufeiliufei Posts: 201
    I'm sorry if I missed something, there're over 400 new post that I scan through since my last visit here.
    But who the heck would compare a Civic with a Camry ??? (happening in multitude of posts here)
  • The EX V6 does suffer a weight penalty...250 pounds over the EX 5-spd. That's a lot when you consider that most of those extra pounds are for the V6 and slushbox, both positioned over the front axle.

    The body roll in my EX is pretty well-controlled and the car doesn't have a wallowy feel at all during fast directional changes. That's the weight-efficient manual four for you. The car's biggest handling weakness is the stock surprise there. I'm not too happy about the gross understeer and sliding during higher-speed turning. Sometimes it's fun to engage in a mild 4-wheel slide, aggravated by throttle input, but one of these days I'm going to slide into the next county. This obviously won't do but I'm optimistic that a real pair of tires will make the Accord a very competent handler, perhaps even sport-like.
  • Please give me your opinion on which car to buy!! I have a Honda Civic 1987 with 185,200 miles! I know Honda is a great car but I have been swayed against a Honda simply because I can get more car for my money by getting something else!! Here is what I have it narrowed down to... Nissan Altima 2000 with 16000 miles for $13000 or a Toyota Camry LE 1997 with 24000 miles for $14700. For the most part the features are the same but I am concerned about the reliability and value of the car in years to come!! Any suggestions or questions I should be thinking of?? Thanks!
  • Sorry I got my pricing mixed up...Altima is $14700 and the Camry is $13400! Thanks
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    If your final list has Camry and Altima(& not Accord), I would drive you towards Camry, although costlier than both Accord & Altima.

    Altima is a poor design & sells mostly due to its low price. Poor crash test result & odd styling. It is also smaller than both Accord and Camry.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    The last Altima I drove was built pretty junky. Drove pretty nice, good power, kinda small. Local dealer has a 99 Altima SE loaded with 9,000 miles for $13,000. I would think you could get a better deal than $14,700 especially look at how much the new ones are selling for. I believe that have a big rebate and low APR financing plus you should be able to buy at invoice. We were considering an Altima for a another company vehicle because they are priced so cheap right now and we could use an extra vehicle. With gas prices though, I'm thinking about looking for a slightly used diesel Jetta and use it for loooong trips.
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    2001 2000
    1 Honda Accord 33,781 24,241
    2 Toyota Camry 24,674 40,285

    Prob'ly it has to do with the availability.
  • will be vying for the top sales figures for years to come, if the last ten years are any indication. They both make wonderful cars at a reasonable price, and more and more people buy them every year -- hence the Big Three's falling market share. The Koreans are starting to wake up too, though, and are starting to eat into the bottom end of the market big time. Just read an article in Business Week wherein James Hossack, an analyst with AutoPacific, said that domestic buyers tend to be more price-sensitive than product (quality) sensitive, so cars like the new Hyundai XG 300 appeal to them.
  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    Those figures are pretty different. In either case, the figures differ by almost 50%.

    Main reason is probably because Honda is doing a special low interest financing on their 2001 Accord 4 cylinders. That's kind of unusual since it's still too early in the model year. Toyota is suprising not matching it, and has no promotion on going.

    It's strange, since Honda profit was hit hard (down over 25%, worse than the 14.1% predicted at the begining of the year), this promotion would only further errode their profit margin and hence profitability. It's odd.

    Maybe they are trying to shore up some defences for the up coming redesigned Camry.

    As for Camry sales, I expect it to remain unchanged this year. The first 6 months will probably see a slight decrease overall from last year.

    Some dealers have reported that they are only receive half as many Camry alotment for the first and second quarter as they use to last year. I don't understand the full logistical reasoning behind it. But it's my guess that (1) Toyota is rotating the assembly line off to retool them for the new Camry, resulting in lower supply than normal. (2) Less alotment means less left over when the new Camry arrives which means less costly promotions to get rid of them. (3) since the well known effects of dropping sales old models as we approach new model/redesign date means as more people are holding off to wait for the new model, there is less demand for the soon to expire existing models.

    But the sales should increase significantly with the new and improved Camry release late this summer. The early drop will off set the later increase, resulting in a relatively neutral year in term of sales (maybe just a slight increase).

    I noticed that the Accord and Camry sales are both down from a month before (Decemeber 2000), same thing for Taurus. Not only that, sales of the Civic, Focus, Corolla, ect are all down from a year ago. Another sure sign that the economy is slowing down.

  • in sales -- particularly in the midwest. Nervousness about the economy, a huge increase in utility bills, etc., all combine to make people a little skittery about getting themselves into new debt.
  • In Yahoo! Finance today, I saw an article stating that new car sales in Feb (or Jan) are down 15% over last year. That's pretty darn significant...and a possible explanation for why I got my Accord for practically invoice. It's a buyers market.

    Sobers: are those figures sales or production? If Toyota is slowing the Camry production - subsequently lowering Camry sales - they are basically handing Honda a free lunch.
  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    funny you should say that. While I was at my barber couple of days ago, talking about the possible tax cut, he went off cursing and complaining about how Bush could keep his trillion dollar tax cut, and just give us a $&#ing break for the energy bill. He was telling me how his heating bill for the barber shop and home has doubled, and it's tough on small private business like him to take up such increase. I sympathized and gave him a big tip. ;)

    Yup, the economy is slowing down, and the automotive sector are usually pretty quick to feel the affects as buying a new car isn't a nessesity. In times like this, trying to hold on to the original buyers are not enough to boost the company performance. To increase profit and sales, you need to have new products that reach new buyers that you didn't have access before.
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    Accord sales include almost 7000-8000 Accords imported from Japan. Camry sales would look better as do Taurus dues to sales to Hertz in coming months of March etc. I read that Taurus for 2000 had 40% sales to fleet !!! They have two factories for Taurus while consumer demand only needs one. Used car market must be pretty bad for Taurus due to all the rental cars flooded to market within a 8-10 months, at the most a year. Rental companys don't keep cars more than a year I guess. (25K miles) i.e selling it when there are still a few thousand miles left in warranty.
  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    Got any insider news as why Honda is starting to discount their model so early this year? It's almost un-heard of for Honda to start going national incentives on their cars so early in the model year. The Accord and Camry are not distress items, they sell themselves, I don't fully understand why Honda is putting incentives on the 2001 Accord only 3 months after they hit the market. Honda (and Toyota) don't usually do those kind of pushing until towards the summer when the model year is about to end.
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    I think Hondas current special financing wouldn't necessarily hurt them. Otherwise they would not do it. I guess it is more related to the economy and product-sales achievement. One more point is that Honda Finance gets more customers due to this !! I guess, they migth have taken care of the credit history/ratings before approving. (Hyundai was in a deep trouble to due giving loans to people with not so good track record: The ended upw oth unpaid loans, legal actions, used depreciated cars with mechanical problems !!)
  • have risen to the point that they cover your average car payment -- making a new car purchase simply out of reach for a lot of people. It's not really the economy per se -- it's the cost of living.
  • "Got any insider news as why Honda is starting to discount their model so early this year?"
    Since the discounts are geared towards the i4, it would seem that Honda may have produced more i4's than they needed, or the public is only willing to purchase v6's this year.
  • Honda usually gives incentives on the 4-cylinders late in the model year, so starting the promotion cycle so early is a surprise, especially since 2001 saw a refreshened (and better) Accord. I'm not complaining...I think I got a very good deal.

    Honda will be in trouble if they start giving out rebates. All the domestics are doing the fire sale strategy, and some models are getting thousands in rebates...even in February. Honda made a big stink a few weeks ago about breaking 1,000,000 in annual sales in 2000. I suppose they want 2001 to at least beat that figure, and the easy way to help sales in a weak selling market is incentives. In the interest of brand preservation, incentives come in form of APR reductions, not cash.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    A large chunk of the resale value a Toyota/Honda retains is because they don't give many rebates. Even the financing will effect the resale on one to two year old vehicles though. If you can get a lower payment on a new one or can invest the difference in APR and come out even why buy used?
  • wenyuewenyue Posts: 558
    Low interest APR fiancing on cars could often be cheaper than putting out rebates. But not always the case. Normal financing rate for a person with good credit is about 7-9% APR. For a $20K (before tax) car, that roughly translate into $5000 in interests (profit for the company) over 5 years. By decreasing the APR to 3.9%, the interest is only little over $2000 over 5 years. The difference in profit for the automaker therefore could be as high as $3000.

    I'm sure they have hired hundreds of accountants to figure that out. But rebates are not always more costly to do than low APR fianancing. But I would agree with who ever said that low APR financing might have less impact on the car's resale (ones older than couple of years) than a rebate.
Sign In or Register to comment.