Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

talon95

I wondered the same thing. Then I figured it out. In his comparison, earlthom listed remote keyless entry and immobilizer as an advantage of the Accord over the Camry. Junepug was just pointing out that the Camry also has these features, so they aren't an Accord advantage.

jtbruin

yeah, the '02 camry had poor/average side ratings for the front passengers and i think 5 stars everywhere else. However, i'm wonderin if they improved the side for the '03, i doubt it ,but anyone know?

also, the accord has standard 16", which i wish the camry le had too, but the accord doesn't have 60/40 rear seats (only 100 fold down)which may reduce the utility of the accord

btw, whatever car you get, a cargo net is one of the coolest features, definitely worth the $40.

junepug

My point was, you did not mention those features in your original post. It appeared that you were weighing your decision on incomplete data. BTW, the Camry also has the trunk opening function on the remote. However, the remote will not open a window. Of course, I do not see any need for that feature.

junepug

We must have the only 2002 Camry LE V6 in captivity that does not have any rattles. We have put over 9000 rattle free miles on the car. Believe it or not, the car was asembled in Kentucky.

earlthom

Thanks for all the input. Yes, it does appear the Camry has the remote keyless entry. I also agree that a lot of the "downgrade" in Toyota mechanical quality may be attributed to a first year for a new model...a concern for the Accord.

I'll continue to read and consider the input - then try to make my best deal.

BTW - Thanks for the thoughts on side-impact airbags - something to consider.

stnick

Yes they did improve the side crash rating to 3 stars in the front door and to 5 stars on rear door area. I had read that they repositioned the side impact beams and added padding for the improvement. And I beleive the front rating on driver is 4 and passenger is 5 stars. This info is on the NHSTA web site.

pwright2

The Passat over both of those.

pat

Erm, mebbe you are looking for the Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat discussion?

03accordman

Sure, take the Passat over these two, you will make great friends with all tow truck drivers in your area, and keep wishing you bought a reliable car. Make sure to buy a supply of coils and bulbs, too

canddmeyer

Honestly, I'm not biased. I own a 1999 Accord LX 4-cyl. My parents have a 1999 Camry LE. Anyway, my repairs are limited to the plastic "chrome" peeling off the door handles. My parents have twice had to replace some kind of idler arm related to the timing @ $400 a pop. My dad complains mostly about the 22-MPG on the Camry, whereas i wished Honda had made antilock brakes standard long before now. Otherwise we are both happy with our choices.

synpthesis

are accords becoming like Camrys which seem to be the new Buicks? Some say that Toyota aims to be the next ('only') GM. These new age sedans have trunk spaces rivaling those of the first gen minivans. Is it true that this is what the market demands?

atlantabenny

Imagine the pressure to sell more cars to survive and thrive in a cut-throat business, as is probably the case for Honda and Toyota. Toyota & Honda marketing chiefs look at the market demographics, and see that more than 60% are still buying domestic.

They also see that a good part of that 60% have a large body physique, unlike that of their Japanese homemarket customers (estimated average height: male: 5'6", female: 5'0") or even their own auto engineers.

Management of both companies decide: let's do American-sized vehicles to capture the mainstream market, and let's make them quiet and smooth on the interstates. Result: Buicky Accords and Camrys.

Another effect: alienation of the traditional Import buyer, which those carmakers are probably willing to risk for long-term survival.

anonymousposts

Don't know what kind of Buicks you have been driving but the Accord is far from a Buick and the Camry has some of the best handling numbers in the class.

03honda

+ what's wrong with a trunk that actually fits things?

jtbruin

I don't think that the camry and accords have(or will have) the image of buicks or pontiacs. I went to a well-known college in LA and most of us drive camrys and accords, along w/ civics, integras, & altimas. I agree that the last generation of the accord and camry were rather bland, but i see plenty of young people (19-26) driving them.

 maybe its different in your part of the country?

btw, i heard that they are redesigning the rear of accord sedan for next year? This is probably not true right?

bamacar

The Camry is excellent at what it does, but the look of the interior and ride have gotten to be very Buick like. If you don't see the similarities, then yes you have not driven a Buick lately. The Accord which I own is not nearly as much like a Buick, but much more so now than it was a few generations ago.

synpthesis

for the observations. We own 2 accords and I regularly rent vehicles both domestics and imports. With the 91 accord (std.) a seemingly anemic 125hp is more than adequate both on highways and at stop lights. Fast forward to newer models and you know something dramatic has happened. Cars that requires more power and gas (yes!) to haul their bloated frames around. If current gen Civics share dimensions with decade old Accords (ditto Corollas with Camrys) then maybe it's not just personal impressions but a further confirmation of the upsizing phenomenon zipping through NA. Most of us will spend a lot of time driving around alone. Do you really need to carry so much air with you? No wonder gas mileages show no remarkable improvement (especially mid size cars). If the market demands it... well ok. But I wonder whether all of us will put up with minivans for our commutes.

carguy58

I am not happy with the current Camry's and Accord's because they do resemble American Cars: 02 Camry resembles 00 Tarus and 03 Accord Sedan resembles Buick in the back of the car. Last Generations of Accord and Camry were much better looking and actually looked like Japanese Cars. The 03 accord Coupe is growing on me slowly though. If Honda and Toyota want to sell me an Accord or Camry when they do the next generation there better not be any Ford Tarus or Buick in there. Its has to look Japanese. I was so happy with the look 96-97 and 98-00 Accords they were totally my style. I'm not an old man either. I'm 23 years old. The accord resembles a Buick in the back end not Pontiac and The Camry resembles a Ford not a Buick. Alienation of the import buyers is right: I think its called selling out. I feel like Honda totally alienated an enthusiast of theirs when they did the 03 Accord sedan exterior. The 97-99 Camry was pretty looking and then they go and cut the back end off of it. Wrong move by Toyota. I'll give Toyota and Honda props for the current Celica and RSX, Accord Coupe though.

jsmath5

The Toyota Camry is aimed at the older generation of folks who want a softer ride and no power. The Accord is for younger, more educated drivers. The Accord has better safety, gas mileage, resale, bigger engine, and better transmission. So in fine tradition, the Camry is like a Buick. Look on the road, 80% of Camry owners are older people. I drive a 2003 Accord V6 coupe, the Camry was ugly and boring for me.

manamal

I disagree with your generalization of the Camry vs Accord. I agree that the camry is geared to people that want a smoother ride. However, those are not only older people. Families sometimes want a smoother ride. Some kids get carsick, and the smoother ride of the Camry is critical. As for power, at the low end (4 cyl), there is not much difference...157 Hp vs 160 Hp, and similar tourque ratings...

But then, I am clearly an older, less educated driver (guess I will have to turn in my PhD).

carguy58

The Camry average age audience has always been older than the Accord. Even now The Accord Sedan audience is still younger than the Camry's. I'll agree the Accord is more advanced than the Camry. I have always liked the Accord(well not the 03 sedan)better than the Camry. The interior in previous generation Accord's look better than previous generation Camry's.

jsmath5

let's see....Accord 240 HP, 5 speed automatic......Camry 192 HP 4 speed automatic. 2003 Avalon based of a 1997 Camry still. Shall I continue. V8 Sequoia 240 HP, V6 Pilot 240 HP. Every Accord comes STANDARD with ABS, Camry makes you pay more for it.......................

All that PhD does is allow you to pay more for a Toyota, get less, and have worse resale value than a Honda.

Any further questions before I go back to my job as foam control on the Camry line. And yes, the Accord is more advanced, VTEC motor, double wishbone suspension, 5 speed auto trans. BTW, if your kids need a smoother ride out of a Camry to keep from getting car sick, why not overpay for the worse depreciation vehicle, a Cadillac while your at it.

brozhnik

i test drove a Camry and and Accord this morning (after months of research and a few separate drives), and subjectively I find myself leaning towards the Accord. Suits me better, basically. But... one new consideration is making me hesitate. The Camry has both a side airbag (at the base of the driver's seat) and a head curtain airbag (at the top of the left windshield pillar). The Accord has only side airbags (at shoulder height on the side of the seat). I could rationalize this away--"the position of the Accord side airbag is high enough, being shoulder height, that it will probably protect your noggin when that teenager runs a red light and t-bones you" -- but .... maybe not. WWW.crashtest.com is very clear on this: one should get *both* side and head-curtain bags, and that's even more important than good side crash-test ratings (which are probably going to be higher in the Accord). So... it confuses my choice.
Anybody here know anything that can help me make this decision?

(E.g., suppose Honda equips the Accord with head-curtain bags in 2004. Would I be able to have them retrofitted into my 2003? Or should I wait to avoid buyer's remorse?)

Thanks!

jsmath5

Honda Accord EXV6 comes standard with front & rear head curtain airbags. The Honda Accord also has better safety ratings than the Camry. The Camry has an issue with its side impact rating on front occupants (3 stars), and pass side frontal is (4 stars).

NHTSA.com for results and actual crash test info in forces exerted on your body in an actual accident.

cgphil1

This article that came came out today rates Toyotas as number one in quality for the fifth straight year with Porsche in second place and Honda among others near the top.
 
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030506/autos_quality_1.html

maxamillion1

Especially considering that neither car is really for the younger crowd. The Accord does ride with better handling and its interior is nicer.

I wouldn't say that the Camry doesn't have power. For one thing, you are WRONG about the Camry's V6 power, it now makes 210 hp out of the V6 and the Camry has more torque than the Accord V6. Also the V6 Camry now comes STANDARD with a 5spd. Automatic.

True, the Accords resale is higher, but not by much I don't believe.

On top of that, the Accord "ain't" exactly the youth mobile it used to be. The 1986-1989 and the 1990-1993 models were the "youthful" Accord models. I see just as many older people driving Camrys as I do Accords. My school's media specialist has a 2001 Accord and she is thinking about getting a 2003. Now the coupe may attract younger people (I saw a college girl in a 03 Coupe EX-l Friday) but the sedan attracts its share of older people.

fredvh

jsmath5 correctly stated that the Honda Accord EX with the V6 comes with the side curtain airbags BUT what he did not say was that the side curtain airbags are NOT available on any other model, not even as an option. So if you wanted an LX or a 4-cylinder model you cannot get the side curtain airbags.

atlantabenny

Honda Accord Coupe without airbags gets NHTSA's 5 out of 5 star rating for all impact categories. 4-door rating would be interesting to know.

Ref:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?ye- - ar=2003&filename=pr17-03.html

jsmath5

I was quoting straight out of the Camry brochure. I guess the 210 and 5 speed automatic are options on certain Camrys. Still would rather have a sportier Accord with better performance. 240 is more than 210. Torque is a non issue. They need the torque to overcome the sludge issue (JK). Safety is better on the Accord also, look at the femur load and the chest deceleration on the Accord & Camry. Accord is better. gas mileage Accord. Resale Accord. Anyway, you get the idea.

All EX Accords have side impact airbage & ABS standard. EXV6 Accords add front & rear head curtain. Camry makes you pay for all 3. Accord has more standard features.

pat

Discuss your opinions of the vehicles all you want. Agree or disagree with each other, but do so civilly.

Personal slams are off-limits.

brozhnik

To summarize the discussion so far: the Accord has a higher NHTSB side-crash rating than the Camry-- 5 stars, as opposed to 3 stars. I take that to mean that if you slide sideways into a pole, or someone rams into your side, your Accord's side is more likely to keep its integrity than your Camry's side. Right? In any case, score one for Accord.

But.... the Camry lets you buy a head-curtain airbag on (I think??) any model. So you not only have a side airbag protecting your lower body, you also have this bag protecting the left hemisphere of your brain. By contrast, with the Accord you can only get the head-curtain bag if you buy a V-6. Otherwise, the best you can do is a shoulder-height side bag that protects your shoulders and upper torso, but not your head. Right?

But I'd still like to find an argument for the Accord (since I like it better). E.g., could it be that your head is far enough away from the frame that with the side-bag you probably won't get beaned in a side collision? Or is that wishful thinking? (Or.... you can always wear a crash helmet for your commute... just kidding).

Anybody know anything about weighing all these factors? Just how important is that head-curtain bag for Accord drivers wanting to avoid brain damage? Thanks!

maxamillion1

But the Camry brochure is wrong unforunately. After 1-20-03 all V6 Camrys have 210 hp, and 212 lb-ft of torque if I am not mistaken.

The Accord is more powerful though.

drmp

When you drive around town and accelerate from stop light to stop light, you need torque. Especially a good twist down at low rpm. That's why some people compared these cars and found out that the camry seem to have better pick up from stand still and felt more powerful. If you look at the horsepower rating, Honda's peak hp is way up the rev range (6k rpm?). Who wants to wind your engine that hard? To me peak horsepower rating is more of a bragging right. TO me it's more important to have good amount of torque between 2k to 5k rpm where it is most usable.

talon95

My experience with my 2003 Accord V6 is that it has readily available power at all RPM levels, including from standstill. It's very responsive between 2K - 5K rpm.

Road and Track had the same opinion, saying that it pulls hard through a wide rev range and is "absolutely scintillating" in the stoplight wars.

Anyone who thinks that the Accord V6 doesn't have far more than ample power AND torque for its family car mission probably should be looking at a different class of car, like the $30000+ sports sedan.

pat

Personal arguments are OFF-LIMITS here. Period.

I removed some posts including some comments I made that were ignored.

jsmath5

On Camrys, Driver & pass. front mounted side impact and overhead front/rear head curtains are available as well as ABS, you have to PAY EXTRA for those unless you buy a V6 or XLE Camry. Then they are standard. Honda has shoulder high side airbags STANDARD on all EX models. They cost 250 dollars on an LX model. All Accord EXV6s come with front, side, and front/rear head curtain. Also the Honda has a better safety rating than Toyota, look at NHTSA.com for the ratings and forces exerted on your body in a crash. Also on torque and acceleration the Accord V6 0-60 is 7.3 seconds, while the Camry XLE V6 is 8.7. torque is 212 on the Honda @ 5000 rpm and 209 @ 4400 rpm on the Camry XLE V6. I am reading from Road & Track. So Honda has better performance & safety than Toyota. Let's go to ALG.com and look at resale value. Again winner Honda. So if you do your research you should find that the Honda is superior in many important areas. But you can buy a pepsi or coke, but I show you why Pepsi is just a little better than coke in this instance. People want Safety, performance, resale, quality, value in a car. Honda gives just a little bit more in these areas than Toyota. Wait, Toyota won on quality by a little bit, I was wrong on Quality. So Honda has safety, performance, resale; vs Toyota's slight edge in quality. BTW, Honda scored above average in quality.

drmp

is 220 @ 4400 RPM (lower RPM than honda) and 210hp @ 5800 rpm. I guess if you keep the rpm below 5000 the camry has better power delivery.

talon95

I guess until we have test results for the new Camry engine, all we have is speculation based on specs. But when it comes to specs, it's interesting to note the difference in performance with the similarly spec'd 4-cyl. engines.

Accord:

2.4L, 160 hp @ 5500 RPM, 161 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM

Camry:

2.4L, 157 hp @ 5600 RPM, 162 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM

Both engines have variable valve timing.

Acceleration figures from Car and Driver with 5-speed MT:

Accord:

0-30: 2.5 sec.
0-60: 7.5 sec.
0-90: 17.4 sec.

1/4 mile: 16.1 @ 87 mph

Camry:

0-30: 2.8 sec.
0-60: 8.3 sec.
0-90: 19.1 sec.

1/4 mile: 16.5 @ 85 mph

Then we have Motor Trend, same engines, with automatics (5-speed for Accord, 4-speed for Camry):

Accord:

0-60: 8.5 sec.
1/4 mile: 16.4 @ 84.8

Camry:

0-60: 9.5 sec.
1/4 mile: 17.1 @ 81.2

So, despite similar specs to their engines and similar curb weights, the Accord managed to outperform the Camry to a measurable degree.

If this disparity in how the engines perform vs. their specs applies to the V6's as well, the Accord may have an advantage that the specs don't reflect.

Not that these slight performance differences matter all that much in this class of car... I doubt that many Accord and Camry owners do a lot of drag racing regardless of which engine/transmission they choose. But this seems to be today's topic of discussion.

ral2167

drove a basic camry LE 4 cylinder.... they messed up the tilt wheel mechanism.... is now like the honda's.... improved the coinbox tho....

does the accord LX come with keyless entry standard? or is that extra? my 2001 coupe LX didnt come with keyless entry-- seems that should be standard now like the camry has.... they probably charge too much for it and better to go with aftermarket eh?

maxamillion1

At least the power window down feature is standard, so I am sure keyless entry is too.

talon95

Keyless entry is standard on all 2003 Accords except for the DX.

The 2003 Accord's steering wheel is now tilt and telescope. Way better than the tilt on my 2000 Accord.

jsmath5

Keyless entry is standard on all LX Accords on up, ABS is standard on every Accord. Time to play catch up Toyota. Honda...bigger engine....5 speed automatic trans., better gas mileage on the Accord, better safety......Better car!!!!!!!!!!

np1908

Recently released JDPower rankings put Chevy Malibu / Pontiac GrandAm at better Quality rankings than Camry/Accords. Chevy Malibu is infact ranked #1 in Quality in mid-size segment. Camcords does not figure in top 3! Toyota still ranks better in overall Quality i.e. considering all brands (Camry, RAV-4, Sienna, etc) together.

While not denying that Camcords are some of the best cars available in mid-size segment, Detroit is indeed catching up FAAST..

jsmath5

Where did you see that? Consumer Reports has the Malibu at -10% Reliability and the Grand Am at -35%, that's negative on both. The Camry scored +17% and the Accord not rated due to new body style. Furthermore the Accord was #1 rated by CR and Pontiac Grand Am was listed as a reliability risk and a car to avoid 1995-2002. Also the Malibu was a car to avoid 1997-2000. So that doesn't hold water. Good bets were Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. But that was just Consumer Reports.

maxamillion1

If it was, I ain't buying it. Wait until about 3 years down the road.

talon95

Interesting comments on JD Power from an auto industry pundit... kinda lends some perspective to an organization that ranks the Chevy Malibu as the top quality mid-sized car. Clearly they've never owned or driven one.

I love the part about the owners complaining about reduced gas mileage in certain trucks, which they based on the fact that they had to fill up more often. Of course these rocket scientists had missed the fact that the gas tanks had been made smaller. Unbelievable...

After seeing their scores and articles like this, JD Power hasn't a shred of credibility left in my eyes.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/insiders/0305/12/-161375.htm

np1908

Here's the link:
http://www.jdpower.com/auto/search/winners.asp?StudyID=736&Ca- tID=1

Answers to maxamillion, jsmath, talon95:

It is initial Quality rankings. Though reliability is certainly different than Initial Quality - I for one, believe that - better Initial Quality goes a long way in achieving long-term reliability. Put it differently, you can't have reliable vehicles if Initial Quality is bad. Well begun, is half-won. I would definitely give credit to Malibu for achieving #1 in Quality. Besides, long-term reliability canNOT be measured on this year i.e. 2003 models. Reliability can be measured only by let's say 5-6 years down the line. For 2003 vehicles, only 'measurable' Quality can only be Initial Quality.

JDPower vs CR: I like JDPower reports better simply 'cause, it just reports the facts i.e. rankings as obtained from the owners. It does not put any twist to the rankings by having it's own reviews on the vehicles. Which is exactly what CR does. Though I wouldn't disrespect CR for doing that. It's just my view that any review is afterall a review i.e. a subjective viewpoint. I for one, do not think the re-skinned Camry (2002) can be readily accorded high reliability ratings (CR gives it glowing reviews) - simply because reliability cannot be measured on the same year it is manufactured. Infact, 2002 Camry did not receive good Safety ratings when the test was done. Whereas I am realistic enough to agree that yester-year Camrys has had very good reliability records.

My original point was that Detroit is catching up FAST with the [non-permissible content removed] - which is indeed true per recent JDPower rankings. I do not discredit Camcords - as they still continue to be some of the best cars available to the consumers. It's just that - 5 years back, I would never have imagined a Chevy mid-size vehicle bettering Camry/Accord in any Quality rankings and am a bit surpirsed to see that happening. And with the 0-0-60 offers going on right now, some Detroit vehicles could even be a good value comparatively.

talon95

CR's reviews and their quality ratings are completely separate, since the quality ratings are based on a readers' survey. And CR's quality ratings aren't marketing oriented as are JD Power's.

And it's abundantly clear from the reports that have surfaced lately that JD Power has no means of assuring meaningful measurements of "quality" from the people that they survey. Hence we have cars getting heavily penalized in "initial quality" for having cupholders that don't hold full sized cups. What in the world does that have to do with quality? As the article says, that's a satisfaction issue and as such is misreported by JDP. So since JD Power uses an unconventional and misleading definition of the term quality in their surveys, it's no surprise to see that cars that are ranked as unreliable in other surveys come out on top there, and that JDP's "quality winners" can easily end up having reliability problems as the miles pile on.

I think Mr. McCormick sums it up best with this quote:

"Those are clearly customer satisfaction issues and bear no relation to the actual quality of the vehicles concerned. The clear failure of J.D. Power's process in these instances naturally raises questions about the dependability of the rest of the survey."

He's absolutely right. Their measurements and controls are a joke from a statistical sense. These "findings" tell us nothing that's really useful about the quality of these cars. So a few Detroit cars winning these meaningless awards is in no way a true indication that Detroit is catching up.

If you want to rely on JDP, that's your call. As for me, I'll stick with CR, since their reliability ratings at least correlate to what most owners actually experience. They measure real problems, not owner satisfaction with cupholders.

maxamillion1

That the Mini Cooper lost out on some quality points because the cupholders were not big enough.

What in the hell does that have to do with quality? That is pure SATISFACTION! Someone also pointed out that the Hummer H2 lost points on quality because of its low gas mileage. That also has absolutely nothing to do with quality.

If the survey indeed takes into affect the usefulness of certain features in a car, and claims them as quality, that is downright stupid if you ask me.

For example

What if the Toyota Corolla was a good car, with good quality, and the only real problems were silly issues like the cupholders being too small, the gas tank being too small, and the stereo buttons being too small, etc. The Corolla would get a lower rating that a comparable Cavailer because it has better cupholders? Those things DO get included in the survey. That makes absolutely no sense.

I congrats to Chevy on the initial quality survey, but I aint buyin it for a second.

jsmath5

If Detroit is catching up, then why did Honda gain 6% of the american market share, and Toyota gain 2% in 2002? Also Ford sold 100,433 less F-150 trucks in 2002 vs 2001(911,597 & 811,164 respectively), and 103,550 less Explorers in 2002 vs 2001 (415,921 & 312,371 respectively). Do you see a trend here, Detroit is a dying breed of automaker. Bye, Bye. Nothing but imports, made in america for my garage and my girlfriends. We both own Hondas!!!!!!!!!!!!