Other than cosmetic issues, the biggest problem with the Camry seems to be the 5 speed automatic shift lag and engine hesitation crisis. All Hondas will have VSC soon along with the standard side curtain airbags the Accord already has.
If the future is anything like the past, expect the 2006 Accord in mid to late August, not June or July.
There might be some nominal restyling, but don't expect much. There could be added features like stability control or making other currently optional features standard......Richard
2006 is the refresh model year, so it should have more than the average number of changes it normally has from year to year. Probably stability control, plus cosmetic changes to the front, rear and interior at the very least.
The rear spoiler jazzes it up and the SE adds a few cosmetic treatments to differentiate it from the other models. I'd use "pimp" instead of "jazz" but YMMV....
That rear-end looks similiar to the Acura TL which would make sense. Most people agree that the current TL looks better than the current Accord. So what should Honda do to improve the Accord and convince people whose leases are up in the next few months to purchase an Accord again ? copy the TL styling and add several TL features of course !
Then why would anyone buy the TL? They have to be different to justify the price difference. "logic"
better warranty, better service (?), sportshift, 20 more hp (than the Accord V6), better sound system, better styling (?), firmer ride, etc.
And keep in mind that the TL will also go through a MMC this Fall which means some new features not available on the 06 Accord (and maybe some new features that will make it into both models like TPMS, MP3 compatibility). It would be nice if the Accord EX V6 got HIDs which the Altima 3.5 has.
I was just responding to your post where you stated... "copy the TL styling and add several TL features of course !" All you would have to do is buy the extended warranty (with the Accord). Can't do anything about the HP. However, I'm sure with the price difference an individual could live with the lower HP and other differences mentioned (if the TL styling was copied, as you suggested).
It is interesting to see that a plausible 06 rear-end of the accord, which is nicer and more appeal. Although there was already a "re-style" on the 05, if the pic is really an 06, it's great to see honda do something about the rear-end (IMO, the style hurts its sales)... Just dont get why they put a useless modification on the tail-light on 05 since there is such a huge change on 06.... :confuse:
I also believe that the current Accord styling is hurting sales (not just the tail lights). Styling is subjective, but in my view, the Camry is nicer looking than the Accord (the Camry, until this recent model was never a nice looking car). Yes even though the interior is a little bland. It has a classier and more mature look to it. It's ironic that when the Accord was the number one selling car, Consumer Reports ranked the Camry higher than the Accord. Now it's the opposite. Until this current model, the Accord had nicer styling (IMHO). Maybe there's a connection?
Like you said, styling is subjective. But in my opinion, I still like the current Accord better than the current Camry in terms of styling. Since the latest redesigned Camry came out 3 years ago or so, I always thought that it looks like a "big boat" when you look it from a side view. Incidentally, the Lexus ES 330 has the same problem. I currently own a 95' Camry LE V6 and after 150k miles still runs perfectly. So, if anything I'm biased towards the Camry. When I purchased my Camry 10 years ago, the deciding factor was price - Accords were selling well over MSRP (yes, MSRP) at the time - whereas you could buy a Camry at a small margin over invoice; the second factor was styling as I thought the Camry looked much better than the then newly redesigned Accord.
Comparing the current versions I am strongly leaning towards the Accord. Current Accord price seem pretty competitive with Camry's, with great deals to be had (several hundred bucks below invoice). The only aspect of the styling I don't care too much in the 05' Accord is the rear lights. In fact, I prefer the lights on the 04' model. The "all red" light looks cheap.
I'm also somewhat biased towards the Camry. I prefer quiet and serene. It's my 3rd (1986-LE, 1994-LE and 2002-XLE). The best seats in any car I have ever owned was in the 1986, support was excellent (styling was really bland). The worst was the 2002... the seat cushion was too short (styling had improved). The current seat cushions are in the middle (styling, the best yet).
I took a close look at the apparent 2006 Accord pics. I don't think the tail light assembly shown is doable on the current Accord model. It would take a major back fender (and bumper) redesign to accomodate. If the picture is indeed an Accord, Honda would have to be incorporate it in the next major redesign. Incidentally, I prefer my "stop" tail lights "red" and my turn signals, back and front, "yellow" in colour. Just my opinion.
We're still not 100 percent sure if it is the 06 Accord. Maybe we'll get better pictures next month. I also prefer amber turn signals but it won't be a deal breaker for us. We owned a 86 Camry LE which made it to 240,072 miles (it reached the end of the road a few months ago) so we were ready for the 05 Camry. We took a test drive and even rented a 05 LE a few weeks ago. The steering was just too light for us even compared to our 86. Still a great car but we are moving toward the Accord at the moment. Who knows maybe we'll end up with the 06 Sonata (or even the 06 Passat ??).
I agree with you petl, great seats on the 86 Camry. I never felt uncomfortable after a 3-4 hour trip.
I found it hard to notice the Red turning signals particular at night! I would perfer amber or orange color, so much easier to see! Camry/all new sonata has the amber color, while both Accord/Altima has Red color turning signal on the mid-age refresh!
Short of taking our child seat out and trying it out in the Camry and the Accord, I'd like to hear from others what their experience has been. Not only is it a pain to put the seat back in our current car, but as our daughter grows we'll be getting new seats anyway. Also, I think it would be best to choose a proper child seat for the car, rather than the other way around. Consumer Reports mentioned problems with a child seat in the Accord hybrid as far as the LATCH system and something about the seat tilting too much in the outboard positions. I don't know if the non-hybrid Accords would be different. Anyway, we're really leaning toward the Camry now and I'm hoping the child seat will work well in it. Also, Is there enough room in the back seat of the Camry to have a passenger in the rear while there's a child seat in the middle?
I have the Alpha Omega in our Accord and have had no problems. It was very secure in the rear-facing and forward-facing position. My Accord is a 04 EX-L 4 cylinder.
With the seat in the middle of my Accord there is adequate room for an adult on each side as long as the adult is not too large.
We bought our 2005 Camry LE about a month ago and placed our Britax Roundabout seat in the middle for our 18 month old daughter. There is plenty of room on each side for passengers. However, she does insist that they hand her the sippy cup from time to time. . . Also, LOTS of room in the trunk for the stroller and everything else. The ride is smooth, too, so she naps frequently while we go on longer cruises.
I agree about the "all red" taillights looking cheap. The industry move away from tail/turn amber signals to red is baffling to me. It makes the cars look like the crap American cars of yesteryear. Amber looks more complex, sophisticated, and purposeful. In fact, Euro cars were using amber for years before others caught on -- and the reason was that studies proved better eye/brain discerning between red and amber, and the amber is brighter. Sad to see good Euro/Japanese brands backsliding into the sludge of middle America red state poor taste. Must be 'Marketing/Sales" stooges forcing design by committee.
I'd rather have amber any day, knowing someone is tailing me in poor visibility conditions. The same types of studies led to many firetrucks changing from red to optic yellow for safety/visibility. I'm an industrial designer and the "all red" offends functional and aesthetic design direction.
I just returned from checking out the Accord Hybrid, and am seriously considering purchase, but will probably wait another model year or two based on that simple (but important) issue. Either that, or, does anyone know where I can find aftermarket taillights (senseable, not the tuner car-toon junk) ? Maybe I could have them install 2004 model year tails with at least the clear section to brak up the mass of cheap red. At least the bulbs under the clear lens light up in amber. Other thoughts on this?
I wish Honda would add amber turn signal lights again but based on the "spyshot" of the 2006 Accord, it doesn't look like it. It's still early so maybe Honda will read the opinions here and add them. At least they could add integrated amber LED turn-signal lights in the side-mirrors.
Amber lights aside, I don't believe the "spyshot" tailight assembly is doable on the current Accord (4door) model. The back fenders would have to be changed in order to accept the design. That would require a major redesign. I can't see Honda doing this. A change in size on the trunk portion is less costly and more likely. Don't be surprised if it doesn't look like a BMW rear end (hopefully with amber turn signals). Just a thought.
I think it's a style thing. Amber somehow has lost the "cool" factor, so even cars with amber lamps use amber bulbs with clear lenses. This way, all you see (when the lamps are off) are red and white/clear lenses.
How this trend got started, I have no idea, but I too think amber signals make more sense.
I think some vehicles are especially bad with the all-red lamps (other than the backup lamps). One example is the 1996-2000 Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan. When the brake lights are on, the separate red turn signal is effectively masked by the adjacent brake lamp. The current-generation Honda Civic sedan also has this problem.
Amber lights aside, I don't believe the "spyshot" tailight assembly is NOT doable on the current Accord (4door) model. The back fenders would have to be changed in order to accept the design. That would require a major redesign. I can't see Honda doing this. A change in size on the trunk portion is less costly and more likely. Don't be surprised if it doesn't look like a BMW rear end (hopefully with amber turn signals). Just a thought.
Glad to see so many others react to the turn signal color issue. Red signal flashers are just incomprehensible to me, even if they consist of light sources (bulbs or LEDs) separate from those for brake/tail lights. We were out last week-end to test drive the Accord - as much as I don't like its Kermit front end and squat rear, the interior sold us over and were about ready to proceed with the test drive when - whoa! Somebody turns on the hazards on one of the 05s and they light up red! I couldn't believe it :mad: I thought the 05 all-red rear scheme was hiding yellow turn signal lights much a la Cadillac CTS, where the all red rear lights plastic cover yields to a yellow signal flasher when the signal is used. At that point we called the test drive off and went home in disbelief - I just can't allow my family to be deprived of what I think to be one of the most elementary and, at the same time, most cost-efficient safety devices - effective signal lights! Anyway, over the week-end I thought of a possible solution , absent Honda reverting to yellow turn signals for 06: replacing the turn signal bulbs with green bulbs would yield yellow light through the red lens, if my high school-level knowledge of physics is to be of any help. Does anybody with more knowledge of optics have any comment? Does anybody have any input as to how hard switching the bulbs may be and whether green bulbs of the socket type and power rating the Accord's flashers take are even available?
It's pretty amazing to me that anyone would even notice the color of the turn signals, let alone not buy a car that they want because of the "wrong" turn signal color. Don't you think that Honda has a few studies laying around about turn signal colors?
Couldn't you just buy the car and then drop a C-note to get the color changed? It should be easy to do. I'd bet that the dealer would do it for you for free if it meant selling you a car.
I must agree with ian on this one. I admit that I never noticed the difference of the blinkers until well into my break-in period . When I did notice, I was glad that it would differentiate my "new" car from other older 2003's. Is that really such a big deal? They blink a light, they don't affect your handling!
Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?
Yikes - Sorry, but you called off the test drive and went home because of the all red tail lights? I have a 05 and, yes, the rear lights are different than the 03's and 04's, but that didn't cause me to go home without one. If you haven't noticed there are a number of new car/vans (domestic and import) out there with all red tail lights. Besides, this all red tail scheme is not new...years ago that's what all cars had, it wasn't until the mid '70's when we started to see the yellow rear turn signals on domestic cars. Do I think the rear turn signal should be yellow? Yes, but it still didn't deter me from buying the car. My feeling is these lights have to meet certain specs. Is the yellow easier to see than the red?? Probably.
And as far as changing the rear bulb to green...I don't think it won't work...chances are you'll wind up with a shade of brown. Yes, when you add green and red together you'll get yellow, but this is different. There's not enough green light generated from the bulb to overcome the red lense.
If yellow rear turn signals are a priority, either buy a 03 or 04, or buy a 05 and replace the turn signals with a used pair off a 03 or 04.
Besides, here in Massachusetts....who uses turn signals???
... and to me they are more visible, I don't believe there are any studies that definitively prove the superiority of amber over red. Of course, conducting such a study would seem virtually impossible, with all of the confounding factors, such as different shapes, sizes, brightnesses, and locations of rear lamps. And there's the demographics issues - different vehicles are driven in different ways by different groups of people.
I concur with your post #2175 about the irrelevance of taillight color to a vehicle purchasing decision. Although some people may not buy a vehicle because of the shape of the mirror or size of the ashtray.
You asked "Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?" The "spyshot" in question is, in all likelihood, not even of a Honda. It most resembles a recent Galant.
Both the Camry and Accord are great cars, but on a few issues the Accord seems to me to have a an edge. First, the suspension of the Accord is more sophisticated and gives a greater feel for the road. Second, the Accord's engine is more sophisticated and produces slightly more power and gets sligthly greater mpg. Third, side airbags are standard across the board on the Accord, even on the DX, and so it has an edge in safety over the Camry.
Why, then, does the Camry outsell it? Well, first, most drivers can't tell if a car is close to a BMW rather than being a much improved Buick in terms of its handling. In fact, many Americans like a soft ride. Second, it seems like the Accord costs something like $1000-$1500 more for a comparable model (Accord LX vs. Camry LE), because it probably costs that much more to make the better engine and suspension. The Camry is an outstanding car, and is a bit better looking, and it's a Toyota, and therefore the Camry sells c.440,000 a year, while the Accord sells c.340,000 a year. I hope Honda sticks to its plan to engineer a better car, but in some ways that strategy may be costing it a few sales. Or maybe it's just that the current Accord is lacking in the looks Dept.
does not outsell the Accord by 100K units, Toyota would like that, but its simply not true.
Also, when you're talking about the Accord DX and safety... note that the DX does not have a rear stabilizer bar. Talk about sloppy emergency handling, given my experience with a Civic DX sans stabilizer, tail happiness is guaranteed in evasive manuvers. You also cant get any Accord with stability just yet, so thats a big advantage to the Camry if you're talking total safety. (The safest one of the bunch, IMO, would be the Camry SE V6 with VSC/Side Curtains).
"The safest one of the bunch, IMO, would be the Camry SE V6 with VSC/Side Curtains."
That's what I bought and stability control was the deciding factor. I do think the Camry is slightly better looking and the SE-V6, with its 17" wheels & spoiler, the best of the Camrys.
For my needs, the Accords better handling and somewhat sportier nature didn't really matter. I think the 3.3 liter V6 offers at least comparable performance to the VTEC Honda and its 240 lb-ft of torque vs the Honda's 212 should provide a real world advantage. Still, I'm sure I would have been very happy with the Accord also.
Btw, 387,000 Accords were sold last year so the Camry sales lead is probably more like 50,000. JD Power data indicates the average Camry buyer is 59 vs 50 for the Accord. It would be interesting to know the mix of 4 cyl vs 6 cyl engines on the two cars. I think I've read that about 70% of buyers pick the 4.
I see Camry taxis and I know some rental companies offer them, too.
Haven't seen Accords used as fleet cars.
Could it be that Toyota has a fleet buyers program that Honda doesn't offer? If so, then maybe the Accord is MORE popular than Camry if only individual purchasing decisions are counted.
Does anybody out there have fleet vs consumer sales for both Accord and Camry?
We just traded in a 2004 Camry SE V6 for a 2005 Accord EX V6 for two reasons. First, the Camry SE's "sport" suspension really doesn't sharpen up the handling much. It makes the car "bobbly," we thought, for lack of a better way of putting it. We even rented a normal Camry in order to see if we were nuts to find such fault with the SE. The rental job handled almost as well. Both had profoundly numb steering and absolutely no road feel whatsoever.
But we could have, and would have given the financial consequences, adjusted to the Camry SE's steering, handling, and ride, had that ride, secondly, not made us queasy. It flat out made us green. Not bad, and not detectably upon just test drives. Just enough to hate the car upon actual ownership. It's important to note that the base rental Camry was even worse than the SE. It rides swell, until you hit the undulations common in two lane northern back roads.
The Accord is fine, ride-wise, as is our other car, a Civic Hybrid.
I, too, think the Camry looks a bit nicer on the outside. I even prefer its interior. And in real world driving, the Camry SE's 3.3 V6 is, if anything, even smoother and zippier than the Accord's excellent V6, probably because of its extra torque.
I'd advise anybody interested in any Camry to rent one for a month before buying.
I also recognize that like so many other things when it comes to cars, preferences in ride quality vary. I can imagine that lots of Americans would not be bothered by the Camry's radical softness, and wouldn't be sickened by it, either, but would, rather, lap it up.
"had that ride, secondly, not made us queasy. It flat out made us green."
Interesting. I just made my first short trip. A 400 mile round trip on the Indiana Toll Road, I-69 and I-94 to Detroit. Several stretches of very old pavement (although I wouldn't say undulating). Didn't notice anything except the nice smooth ride.
Yes, the steering doesn't impart much road feel but when I'm just cruising down the highway or around town, that doesn't bother me. In my test drives of the Camry and Accord (over the same route), I couldn't really tell the difference but that just means the route wasn't challenging enough or I'm not sensitive to subtle changes in driving dynamics.
I agree that a renting a car for a day or two would be the best way to really test them out. Unfortunately, you can't rent an Accord (Honda doesn't sell to fleets) so a long term test would be difficult.
My guess is that 90% of the driving population could be happy with either of these cars. It's unfortunate for a few that they find something they can't live with only after making the purchase.
If you read the first part of my response I did mention you'll get a "shade of brown".
When using the additive method, the primary colors are red, blue, and green. The more additive primaries you add, the lighter the resultant color. Mix all three and you get white, as used in a color TV.
The subtractive primaries are red, blue, and yellow--to be exact, magenta, cyan (light blue), and yellow. These are the colors that, together with black, are used in color printing.
The more subtractive primaries you mix, the darker the color. Mix all three and you get black (OK, brown, but with kindergarten paints you can't expect miracles).
As a general proposition, additive primaries involve adding more LIGHT (as in a color TV), while subtractive primaries involve mixing more PIGMENT (as in paints and crayons).
Additive colors are easy to demonstrate on a color computer monitor equipped with a color-control program. Just so happens I have one right here.
How do we make yellow? By adding full-strength red and full-strength green. Adding two-thirds strength blue gives us a lighter (not darker) yellow.
Full-strength blue, red, and green produce bright white. This is a counterintuitive result if you learned your color-mixing skills in kindergarten.
But we know that white light can be broken into all the colors of the rainbow. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn the process also works in reverse--i.e, the colors of the rainbow can be combined to make white.
Thanks for the useful info jimex. It does sound like an issue better left to the mfr to solve. To the others: yes, signal color is that important to me! And I don't see a problem with that: think of the number of people that bought VW Jettas based on the nice glow of the blue hue of the instrument panel - and you must agree that if turn signal color is not all that important, dash lights are totally irrelevant! Consequently, the Accord is off my shopping list; the Camry was never on it because of its driving dynamics (or lack thereof). Cheers!
It's too bad you're crossing the Accord off your list because of the red directional light scheme. The Accord is truly a wonderful car. However, I repsect your reasons. But during your new car search, don't be surprised when you find that other car manufacturers have decided to go all red as well.....there's an increasing number of them. How about a used 04 - they have yellow signals. Good luck.
I agree about the "all red" taillights looking cheap. The industry move away from tail/turn amber signals to red is baffling to me. It makes the cars look like the crap American cars of yesteryear. Amber looks more complex, sophisticated, and purposeful.
We have five vehicles and I have no idea what color the taillights are on any of them but the Accord V6 because of the emphatic opinions here stated. Apparently most purchasers are more concerned with the part they sit in.
But multicolor taillights are more expensive to manufacture, or replace. Molds that inject three colors cost more and take longer to cycle.If cars with amber turn signals got into fewer accidents that would be a different story.
One of the main reasons for the switch to all red is so that LEDs can be used. A single panel/array of LEDs with multi-display modes as Cadillac was an early innovator about 10 years ago.
Yes, you could have multi-color LEDs, both red and yellow. But the auto designers seem more intent on focussing on faster light turn-on, longer light life, mutli-display patterns and varying intensity based on whether the brakes are applied normally or slammed on, or ABS activated or EBD.
I am not sure the cost differential between yellow and red molding is the real answer. Some have gone to clear lens with the light bulb as the color. I think the real reason imitation the sincerest form of flattery; since the designers of the expensive luxury cars have gone to a single color Accords and other cars are following.
But to chose a car on whether it has yellow blinker lights or not is pretty absurd; the guy probably doesn't remember hand signals. Wait a second, I remember, I did paint the back of my left arm and hand bright yellow for signalling. Actually, it would be nice around here if the people used their turn signals at all, no matter what color they were.
Being an engineering manager, I can say that opening up the hood of the Accord and you find wires, hoses, ducts, plastic parts and what nots... running all over the engine bay in random fashion, whereas the Camry's engine bay is laid out very neatly and logically.
Honda products appear to use about twice the fastening hardware therefore must be twice as intensive in their labor content.
To me that means Toyota employs far more talented engineers and spends a lot more time and efforts into the research, development, engineering, design, testing and production of their cars. Toyota is about 4 times bigger than Honda and can produce cars to custom orders with various options on their lines, whereas Honda can only produce limited number of standard models. That is a huge difference in terms of mangement,. controls and logistics to make it happen.
Driving 5 year-old Accords and Civics and you will find a lot of rattles, squeaks, steering looseness, engine sputtering, brakes fading...whereas comparable Camrys and Corollas tend to be solid, rattle-free, with smooth, quiet engine and brake responses.
It's subjective but I also think the interior and exterior materials in Honda's products appear worn out and faded earlier.
To be fair, my friend's MBZ's top of the line 2001 500SL, which costed him $78K, after a few years also has terrible engine, throttle and transmission responses, braking problems, shoddy suspension, cheap, worn-out interior and exterior with very dim head lights. The stereo also sounds far worse than either the Accord or the Camry.
Just my subjective evaluations. Take it for what it's worth.
Silly post. Only one "point" worth responding to: "...driving...Accords...Civics...you will find a lot of rattles, squeaks...". Interesting. Camry has a Discussion Forum devoted entirely to rattles; Honda doesn't. Draw your own conclusion.
Comments
All Hondas will have VSC soon along with the standard side curtain airbags the Accord already has.
Besides VSA & some cosmetic changes, what other new features are possible - TPMS (direct or indirect), auto on/off head lamps, next-gen NAV.
There might be some nominal restyling, but don't expect much. There could be added features like stability control or making other currently optional features standard......Richard
I'd use "pimp" instead of "jazz" but YMMV....
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=347007
........Richard
better warranty, better service (?), sportshift, 20 more hp (than the Accord V6), better sound system, better styling (?), firmer ride, etc.
And keep in mind that the TL will also go through a MMC this Fall which means some new features not available on the 06 Accord (and maybe some new features that will make it into both models like TPMS, MP3 compatibility). It would be nice if the Accord EX V6 got HIDs which the Altima 3.5 has.
Comparing the current versions I am strongly leaning towards the Accord. Current Accord price seem pretty competitive with Camry's, with great deals to be had (several hundred bucks below invoice). The only aspect of the styling I don't care too much in the 05' Accord is the rear lights. In fact, I prefer the lights on the 04' model. The "all red" light looks cheap.
Just my opinion.
I took a close look at the apparent 2006 Accord pics. I don't think the tail light assembly shown is doable on the current Accord model. It would take a major back fender (and bumper) redesign to accomodate. If the picture is indeed an Accord, Honda would have to be incorporate it in the next major redesign. Incidentally, I prefer my "stop" tail lights "red" and my turn signals, back and front, "yellow" in colour. Just my opinion.
I agree with you petl, great seats on the 86 Camry. I never felt uncomfortable after a 3-4 hour trip.
With the seat in the middle of my Accord there is adequate room for an adult on each side as long as the adult is not too large.
I'd rather have amber any day, knowing someone is tailing me in poor visibility conditions. The same types of studies led to many firetrucks changing from red to optic yellow for safety/visibility. I'm an industrial designer and the "all red" offends functional and aesthetic design direction.
I just returned from checking out the Accord Hybrid, and am seriously considering purchase, but will probably wait another model year or two based on that simple (but important) issue. Either that, or, does anyone know where I can find aftermarket taillights (senseable, not the tuner car-toon junk) ? Maybe I could have them install 2004 model year tails with at least the clear section to brak up the mass of cheap red. At least the bulbs under the clear lens light up in amber. Other thoughts on this?
How this trend got started, I have no idea, but I too think amber signals make more sense.
I think some vehicles are especially bad with the all-red lamps (other than the backup lamps). One example is the 1996-2000 Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan. When the brake lights are on, the separate red turn signal is effectively masked by the adjacent brake lamp. The current-generation Honda Civic sedan also has this problem.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Couldn't you just buy the car and then drop a C-note to get the color changed? It should be easy to do. I'd bet that the dealer would do it for you for free if it meant selling you a car.
Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?
And as far as changing the rear bulb to green...I don't think it won't work...chances are you'll wind up with a shade of brown. Yes, when you add green and red together you'll get yellow, but this is different. There's not enough green light generated from the bulb to overcome the red lense.
If yellow rear turn signals are a priority, either buy a 03 or 04, or buy a 05 and replace the turn signals with a used pair off a 03 or 04.
Besides, here in Massachusetts....who uses turn signals???
I concur with your post #2175 about the irrelevance of taillight color to a vehicle purchasing decision. Although some people may not buy a vehicle because of the shape of the mirror or size of the ashtray.
You asked "Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?" The "spyshot" in question is, in all likelihood, not even of a Honda. It most resembles a recent Galant.
Why, then, does the Camry outsell it? Well, first, most drivers can't tell if a car is close to a BMW rather than being a much improved Buick in terms of its handling. In fact, many Americans like a soft ride. Second, it seems like the Accord costs something like $1000-$1500 more for a comparable model (Accord LX vs. Camry LE), because it probably costs that much more to make the better engine and suspension. The Camry is an outstanding car, and is a bit better looking, and it's a Toyota, and therefore the Camry sells c.440,000 a year, while the Accord sells c.340,000 a year. I hope Honda sticks to its plan to engineer a better car, but in some ways that strategy may be costing it a few sales. Or maybe it's just that the current Accord is lacking in the looks Dept.
Also, when you're talking about the Accord DX and safety... note that the DX does not have a rear stabilizer bar. Talk about sloppy emergency handling, given my experience with a Civic DX sans stabilizer, tail happiness is guaranteed in evasive manuvers. You also cant get any Accord with stability just yet, so thats a big advantage to the Camry if you're talking total safety. (The safest one of the bunch, IMO, would be the Camry SE V6 with VSC/Side Curtains).
~alpha
That's what I bought and stability control was the deciding factor. I do think the Camry is slightly better looking and the SE-V6, with its 17" wheels & spoiler, the best of the Camrys.
For my needs, the Accords better handling and somewhat sportier nature didn't really matter. I think the 3.3 liter V6 offers at least comparable performance to the VTEC Honda and its 240 lb-ft of torque vs the Honda's 212 should provide a real world advantage. Still, I'm sure I would have been very happy with the Accord also.
Btw, 387,000 Accords were sold last year so the Camry sales lead is probably more like 50,000. JD Power data indicates the average Camry buyer is 59 vs 50 for the Accord. It would be interesting to know the mix of 4 cyl vs 6 cyl engines on the two cars. I think I've read that about 70% of buyers pick the 4.
Haven't seen Accords used as fleet cars.
Could it be that Toyota has a fleet buyers program that Honda doesn't offer? If so, then maybe the Accord is MORE popular than Camry if only individual purchasing decisions are counted.
Does anybody out there have fleet vs consumer sales for both Accord and Camry?
.............Richard
But I think Taurus and Impala take the award as "Fleet Queens"
But we could have, and would have given the financial consequences, adjusted to the Camry SE's steering, handling, and ride, had that ride, secondly, not made us queasy. It flat out made us green. Not bad, and not detectably upon just test drives. Just enough to hate the car upon actual ownership. It's important to note that the base rental Camry was even worse than the SE. It rides swell, until you hit the undulations common in two lane northern back roads.
The Accord is fine, ride-wise, as is our other car, a Civic Hybrid.
I, too, think the Camry looks a bit nicer on the outside. I even prefer its interior. And in real world driving, the Camry SE's 3.3 V6 is, if anything, even smoother and zippier than the Accord's excellent V6, probably because of its extra torque.
I'd advise anybody interested in any Camry to rent one for a month before buying.
I also recognize that like so many other things when it comes to cars, preferences in ride quality vary. I can imagine that lots of Americans would not be bothered by the Camry's radical softness, and wouldn't be sickened by it, either, but would, rather, lap it up.
Interesting. I just made my first short trip. A 400 mile round trip on the Indiana Toll Road, I-69 and I-94 to Detroit. Several stretches of very old pavement (although I wouldn't say undulating). Didn't notice anything except the nice smooth ride.
Yes, the steering doesn't impart much road feel but when I'm just cruising down the highway or around town, that doesn't bother me. In my test drives of the Camry and Accord (over the same route), I couldn't really tell the difference but that just means the route wasn't challenging enough or I'm not sensitive to subtle changes in driving dynamics.
I agree that a renting a car for a day or two would be the best way to really test them out. Unfortunately, you can't rent an Accord (Honda doesn't sell to fleets) so a long term test would be difficult.
My guess is that 90% of the driving population could be happy with either of these cars. It's unfortunate for a few that they find something they can't live with only after making the purchase.
More like a brown to me.
Isn't yellow a primary color?? (any color with any other color wont make yellow)
and isn't green made with mixing blue and yellow?
When using the additive method, the primary colors are red, blue, and green. The more additive primaries you add, the lighter the resultant color. Mix all three and you get white, as used in a color TV.
The subtractive primaries are red, blue, and yellow--to be exact, magenta, cyan (light blue), and yellow. These are the colors that, together with black, are used in color printing.
The more subtractive primaries you mix, the darker the color. Mix all three and you get black (OK, brown, but with kindergarten paints you can't expect miracles).
As a general proposition, additive primaries involve adding more LIGHT (as in a color TV), while subtractive primaries involve mixing more PIGMENT (as in paints and crayons).
Additive colors are easy to demonstrate on a color computer monitor equipped with a color-control program. Just so happens I have one right here.
How do we make yellow? By adding full-strength red and full-strength green. Adding two-thirds strength blue gives us a lighter (not darker) yellow.
Full-strength blue, red, and green produce bright white. This is a counterintuitive result if you learned your color-mixing skills in kindergarten.
But we know that white light can be broken into all the colors of the rainbow. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn the process also works in reverse--i.e, the colors of the rainbow can be combined to make white.
Hope this helps.
We have five vehicles and I have no idea what color the taillights are on any of them but the Accord V6 because of the emphatic opinions here stated. Apparently most purchasers are more concerned with the part they sit in.
But multicolor taillights are more expensive to manufacture, or replace. Molds that inject three colors cost more and take longer to cycle.If cars with amber turn signals got into fewer accidents that would be a different story.
One of the main reasons for the switch to all red is so that LEDs can be used. A single panel/array of LEDs with multi-display modes as Cadillac was an early innovator about 10 years ago.
Yes, you could have multi-color LEDs, both red and yellow. But the auto designers seem more intent on focussing on faster light turn-on, longer light life, mutli-display patterns and varying intensity based on whether the brakes are applied normally or slammed on, or ABS activated or EBD.
I am not sure the cost differential between yellow and red molding is the real answer. Some have gone to clear lens with the light bulb as the color. I think the real reason imitation the sincerest form of flattery; since the designers of the expensive luxury cars have gone to a single color Accords and other cars are following.
But to chose a car on whether it has yellow blinker lights or not is pretty absurd; the guy probably doesn't remember hand signals. Wait a second, I remember, I did paint the back of my left arm and hand bright yellow for signalling. Actually, it would be nice around here if the people used their turn signals at all, no matter what color they were.
Blink-Blink,
MidCow
Honda products appear to use about twice the fastening hardware therefore must be twice as intensive in their labor content.
To me that means Toyota employs far more talented engineers and spends a lot more time and efforts into the research, development, engineering, design, testing and production of their cars. Toyota is about 4 times bigger than Honda and can produce cars to custom orders with various options on their lines, whereas Honda can only produce limited number of standard models. That is a huge difference in terms of mangement,. controls and logistics to make it happen.
Driving 5 year-old Accords and Civics and you will find a lot of rattles, squeaks, steering looseness, engine sputtering, brakes fading...whereas comparable Camrys and Corollas tend to be solid, rattle-free, with smooth, quiet engine and brake responses.
It's subjective but I also think the interior and exterior materials in Honda's products appear worn out and faded earlier.
To be fair, my friend's MBZ's top of the line 2001 500SL, which costed him $78K, after a few years also has terrible engine, throttle and transmission responses, braking problems, shoddy suspension, cheap, worn-out interior and exterior with very dim head lights. The stereo also sounds far worse than either the Accord or the Camry.
Just my subjective evaluations. Take it for what it's worth.