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



  • tinatinatinatina Posts: 388
    They actually gave the Accord the better steering rating in that shoot-out, but both tied in handling. Sorry, I meant both suspension and handling.

    Additionally, here's is what they said when reviewing the 2007 Altima:

    "The improved front suspension tuning, along with the new speed-sensitive, power rack and pinion steering system, provides a precise and linear steering response that rivals the class leader in this area — Honda's Accord."
  • msisengmsiseng Posts: 369
    Honda leather seats are far more comfortable for those of us with bad backs. They offer a lot of support unlike the Camry seats.

    Always buy a second year model over the first year model. Even the great and mighty Toyota is having transmission issues much like the Acura Transmission Loser (TL) a few years ago.

    When the new Accord arrives in '08, wait for the '09!
  • faldocfaldoc Posts: 84
    I like Accords and Camrys for different reasons. I have had 2 Accords, still have one (a 1998). Accords are sportier to drive, but the vast majority of my driving is commuting and for this there is no question the Camry has a more Lexus like feel, and is great for commuting, as it is less fatiguing. However, as many of you might have read my 07 Camry XLE V6 is in the shop :sick: so the point is moot. The 06 Camry loaner feels good to me too, I must say, and is my choice to drive over the Accord.
  • alrjalrj Posts: 11
    let me get this straight, u are comparing your 98 accord to your 07 camry?
  • daavodaavo Posts: 8
    I just came across this thread and wanted to put in my two cents. Being a previous Toyota owner I planned on purchasing the new Camry when it came out. I thought the styling of the 07 camry looked unusual but styling isn't everything to me so I went and test drove one anyway. I have to say, it was dissapointing.

    The quality of the materials used is not up to Toyota standards. All of the little things like the sunglass holder, the dash materials, seat fabrics, the sound of the door closing, all lacked the traditional toyota polish. The key looks like one of those crappy chrysler keys, as well. The car drove ok but wasn't anything special.

    It appears Toyota is learning how to make more profit on its volume models and it shows.

    The accord just seemed more "special". I purchased mine last 06 LX SE. I think the interior on the Accord is better than the Camry. It seems to be on a higher quality "plateau" than the camry. Sorry camry fans. And sorry for the long post.
  • houtex1houtex1 Posts: 82
    I am in the market for a new car. Was wondering if there are any important differences in how the navigation systems work, ease of use, etc. Is one better than the other and why? Any likes/dislikes? What brands do each have?
    Any reviews of these navigation systems that you know of? Thanks for any information you can provide.
  • fsowirlesfsowirles Posts: 195
    Well, they both offer Voice Activated nav which to me is a big plus over many other systems. They are both very good. I have used the Toyota system (Denso?) in my Camry, and my neighbors 2005 Odyssey has the Honda system. They are very similar overall, and probably not going to be the deal maker or breaker for either car.
  • houtex1houtex1 Posts: 82
    Thanks. Do you know if the Camry Navigation system is the same as is listed on the Lexus site? There is a tutoril on the Lexus site.
  • camry1090camry1090 Posts: 7
    I remember my mom talking about how my grandmother's '92 Accord LX had a problem with the transmission jerking when being put into Drive. I personally never remember this happenening, but I do remember the car being a little rough when the car was shifting. Funny you mentioned the thing about the early '90s Accords. :)
  • suzeessuzees Posts: 22
    Rookie -

    I chose the 4cyl, first for the better gas mileage, and 2ndly, I've had a 4cylinder the past, and it was enuf get-up-and-go for me. I had a 4cyl 02 camry in the past, and this accord has more horsepower -166, compared to the camry's 158hp (don't quote me on that).

    Have you purchased your car yet?? :D
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You are right...and the current Accord I-4 is more peppy than the brand new 2007 Camry I-4, although the V-6 Camry runs away from the V-6 Accord.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Just as a point of clarification, the I4 in the New Camry is not a 'brand new I-4', which your post might lead some to believe. The Camry.. brand new.... Camry I4... largely carried over (slight power enhancement, more robust refinement enhancement). In the coming years, though, I expect that Toyota will further the design of this engine by hopefully adding VVT to both intake and exhaust cams. The Camry carries an excess of about 125lbs compared to the Accord, which also has to do with it being a bit slower (.5 to 1 second in 0-60, I'd estimate).

  • tinatinatinatina Posts: 388

    I was actually refering to a late 1980s Acura and the previous generation Accord. But my neighbor had some tranny problems with his early 1990s Accord, the same as your grandparents.

    If you are considering the current gen. Accord 4, those problems have gone away. The 4 has sufficient power and the shifts are quite smooth. By far, its the best 4cylinder/tranny I have owned to date. That includes a 1988 Acura Integra, 2000 Accord, 2000 Camry, and 2002 Tacoma.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I meant the newly released car, not engine. Sorry for the lack of clarification.
  • fsowirlesfsowirles Posts: 195
    No, but it is supposedly the same as the NAV in the new IS.
  • jay_gatsbyjay_gatsby Posts: 45
    I test drove the Camry LE this past weekend, and was very disappointed in how it drove. The word "econobox" comes to mind. Likewise, I also felt a bit of hesitation when the car automatically shifted from first to second, as another poster reported on the 2007 Camry board. The interior of the LE felt cheap, and the SE wasn't much better. The seats were uncomfortable (the cloth was cheap), and while the cabin was cavernous, it felt like an empty aircraft hanger because of the lackluster interior. The stereo is enormous -- it takes of 3 or 4 times the amount of room that a high quality aftermarket stereo deck would occupy. For comparison's sake, I also sat in the XLE and had the same feeling. The leather felt cheap, and the interior was bland. Despite what many posters on the 2007 board have said, the Camry DOES NOT feel or drive like a Lexus. Rather, it drives much more like your average rental car, and looks like one on the inside. The exterior is nice, but seems like a body kit that someone put over a smaller car. Take a look at the amount of space between the radiator and the front grill, and you'll see what I mean. To me, the exterior of a car should fit like a skin, not an overcoat.

    Although I haven't driven the 2006 Accord LX Special Edition, the interior felt tighter, and the seats were more comfortable. The "premium" cloth still didn't meet my standards, so I may end up going with leather. The layout of the dash was better than the Camry, but I still think the stereo and climate controls are too large for the space. Again, an aftermarket stereo would take up far less room, and probably provide more power and features than the stock one offered by Honda. I'm not excited with the exterior of the 2006 Accord. In fact, I haven't liked the rear of the car ever since it debuted. However, as I see the 2003-2005 Accords, which I think have a more attractive rear, they are already beginning to look dated. Coupled with the fact that Hyundai copied the 2003-2005 Accord rear end, I'm glad Honda redesigned it (although it could definitely be more attractive). The hood of the 2006 Accord seems the same as prior years, which I always thought looked a little too "bubble-like". I prefer a straighter hood, such as was on the 1994-1996 Accord.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I've been driving a 1994 Honda Accord LX for the past 10 years (thus, as you can see, it's time for a new(er) car). Eventually I see handing the car over to my fiance for transporting the kids we'll eventually be having, probably sometime in the next 1.5-2 years). When that happens, I'll probably buy a Lexus ES 350. In the meantime, the 2006 looks like it will fit the bill better than the 2007 Camry.

    People here may argue with me, but the foregoing is my personal opinion, nothing more.
  • njeraldnjerald Posts: 688
    You definitely didn't have to disclose you have a Honda now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • petlpetl Posts: 610
    Contrary to what some are saying (including some professional reviewers), it's not suppose to drive like a Lexus (even though they've raised the bar a bit, it isn't a Lexus). By the end of the year a half a million North Americans may disagree with your assessment. Time will tell. I've actually removed the Camry from a list of possible replacements for my 2002 XLE. In my opinion, I think Toyota did an excellent job with this one (I've owned some pretty boring Toyotas).
  • jay_gatsbyjay_gatsby Posts: 45
    Why shouldn't I? It's not that I'm pre-disposed to buy another Honda. If I were, I wouldn't have given very serious thought to buying a Camry. It took a test drive of the Camry to convince me that no matter how attractive the exterior, the car itself is still boring. The Accord doesn't necessarily seem less boring, just different. They're both pretty reliable cars for the money, but the Accord is a few thousand dollars less with the same options (e.g., the Accord LX Special Edition vs. the Camry LE with various options).

    Buying a car has many objective factors, but ultimately it comes down to subjective opinion. At this point, a car like the Accord is enough for my needs.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    While I'm a tremendous fan of the American Dream themeatic, I must disagree with your assessment of the new Camry, jay.

    Here's what I posted in the dedicated Camry forum:
    Test drove the 07 Camry and was duly impressed!

    Briefly, my observations over the 10 mile test drive.

    The vehicle, an LE 4, exhibited excellent fit and finish, both inside and out. Although I was concerned at first by the vehicle's weight gain and the incremental gain in power, this 4 feels at least as strong as the 4 in my parents' 02 Camry LE, though really, I think it may test slightly quicker. It also has a more refined sound, and seemed to rev more easily to redline. If fuel economy lives up to expectations, I'm not nearly as disappointed as I was upon first learning there wasnt a significant power upgrade. The standard ULEV-II rating is also a boon for those concerned about the enviornment.

    The biggest improvement, by and large? Brake pedal feel. I couldn't believe I was driving a bread and butter Camry 4; for years, the pedal has been mush. Not so anymore. (I'd also be shocked if didnt stop shorter owing to more tire contact patch and 4 wheel discs with greater swept area).

    Steering feel has also improved, and one doesnt get the Buick impression that the wheel could be turned by a single pinky; its firmer but not artificially firm (as in some Nissans). It's not an Accord, but its probably a very agreeable compromise for the folks who own a previous generation Camry and others lookign for more feel. I did not have the opportunity to take any hard corners, but upon first impressions, I'd chose this vehicle easily over its predecessor. (No SEs were available that hadnt already been sold).

    The front seats seem to offer more lateral and lumbar support, and in my brief occupancy time, I liked them better than the '02-'06, and the telescoping wheel is a notable improvement. Note, though, it did seem like the seat cushion bottom was any longer, for those concerned about that... I do not know the official specs.

    I liked the interior styling and materials, especially the seat cloth.

    However, I felt the control panel dimmer switch, now in the dash, to be flimsy. And the cabin does not feel as 'airy' as in the previous generation, though it is certainly still large. The stereo display is oversized (why?) and the font is very 1980s. Finally, along my list of demerits, while I love the Optitron instrumentation, in direct sunlight, it felt as though it it didnt have the contrast of the previous generation.

    The storage areas are many and useful; I loved the trick door on the passenger side for concealing my iPod wires.

    Overall, a very enjoyable drive, and a great family car. For me, I'll take the SE and the V6, thank you very much.

  • jeffw330jeffw330 Posts: 13
    I am in exactly the same position! Camry XLE is a bit quieter and softer in handling than the Accord EX V6.

    Camry XLE has the following features I like (some optional), which the Honda does not

    Smart key.
    Manual shift gate for the AT - a great feature, especially for downshifting in hilly driving.
    Rear seats that recline (a little).
    Fancy sound system with blue tooth capability.
    Slightly better EPA mileage, and more HP.

    I might be leaving out some of the differences, but these are the ones that stuck out in my mind.

    I am getting dealer quotes on the Honda of $3,000+ less than a comparably equipped 2007 Camry XLE V6. I think the Camry overall has more bells and whistles, but the price difference from the Accord is pretty substantial.

    Both are excellent vehicles!
  • njeraldnjerald Posts: 688
    See post 2315 for the Honda/Toyota feature cost comparison.
  • gtgtcobragtgtcobra Posts: 268
    I love all this arguing.
    I think that BOTH the Camry "and" the Accord are nice cars. Both have unique styling.
  • tinatinatinatina Posts: 388
    Yeah, its a tough call especially with the pricing differential. I prefer the fold down seats though better than reclining. I was surprised that the Camry barely edged the Accord, a four year old vehicle in the Edmunds' shoot-out. The Accord clearly has an advantage in handling/suspension as noted by Edmunds and other car mags, although the new Camry may be catching up a bit. Have you seen the pricing thread - people have gotten the EX V-6 in the 23k+ to 24k+ range (including NAV)? Finally, there have been some posters indicating that the Camry interior is cheaper, including one from yesterday's Hybrid thread. I would concur with them when comparing LX Accord 4 to the LE Camry 4, but can't comment on the same units with leather. The dash is also a lot nicer on the Accord as are the gauges in my opinion.

    In my area, several dealers have over 20+ Camrys in stock. However, only 1 or 2 of them are V-6s. Anyway best of luck with whatever you go with, and keep us informed.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    tinatina, you continually state the same things over and over. And to provide a clearer picture, I continually try to amplify your comments.

    In regard to scoring and point totals, stated:
    "With the anticipation of parents watching their child win a spelling bee with the final letter, we watched the Camry's point total edge out the Accord's by a 0.64 margin. Despite what this might indicate, there really was no dispute regarding which of these four cars should win the comparison."

    And in regards to handling "It's too bad there's no way of disabling the stability control because the Camry feels like it could go quicker than the safety-minded engineers will allow. It feels at least as athletic as the Accord, but we'll never know."

    And finally, 20 Camrys in stock means nothing without some kind of relative compartor. 20 Camrys at the dealership where my parents bought their last Toyota would be relative depleted stock.

    I definitely prefer the stereo display of the Accord, but the Camry's interior overall. I'm one of the folks who really likes the bluish lighting of the stero surround in the Camry, as well as the climate control knobs....

  • tinatinatinatina Posts: 388
    With all due respect, you obviously missed the point of my response and your responses don't add anything to further the discussion. I would also suggest that you tone down your comments a bit since "you are not always amplifying my comments."

    Nobody here can get their hands on a V-6 Camry, 4 cylinders are more available. So, in indicating the number of vehicles available in my area, my point to the other poster is that it may be difficult to get a hold of a Camry V-6, and easier to get an Accord V-6. I'm not sure what your parents buying a Camry have to do with this point. Your reply is not clear.

    As far as the handling issue, when previewing the new Altima - 2007, Edmunds said that Honda Accord is still the class leader in handling/suspension area (I gave you that link previously - but you can look it up for yourself). You are just reciting an opinion from an editor, which is fine, but is incomplete. Specifically, in that same shoot out, Honda's scores in these areas were simply better. (As you know from my previous posts - I said that the Camry V-6 should have won by a larger margin and was suprised by how close it was). Other magazines indicated the same thing with respect to the handling/suspension issue, as do several posters, including yourself when you stated in your original post "...Its not an Accord." So, I am not making any specific comments as to which one is better as you did in your original post. Rather, the consensus (magazines and several posters, including yourself) appears to suggest that the Accord continues to dominate in this area, but the Camry is catching up. Maybe, you need to re-review your original post, and revise it, if your opinon on this issue has now changed or needs to be clarified.

    I would suggest that you review the comments made by the posters not as an advocate for any one side, but as a person who wants to provide helpful information about both vehicles and wants to share that information to others.
  • njeraldnjerald Posts: 688
    No argument here.

    Just the facts from both manufacturers.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Which "original post" of mine are you referring to?

    I made no assertion as to the better handling of the Accord or Camry in my last post, I simply reiterated what the comparison test stated in their review of the Camry's handling characteristics.

    Overall, the Accord is more of a driver's car, most definitely. However, from reading your postings, one would think that although the 'Camry is catching up', it is not in the same league. My intention, using the report as backup, was to show that it is.

    Regarding inventory, your statement was

    "In my area, several dealers have over 20+ Camrys in stock. However, only 1 or 2 of them are V-6s."

    YOU DID NOT EVEN MENTION AVAILABILITY OF ACCORD V6s (anywhere in your post), so how would any reader guess that you were making a comparison between availability of V6 models? Most of us lack ESP, I'd guess.

    Your point, since you clarified, is understood. Still, it is your supposition that A) the dealership near you is representative of all Toyota dealerships in their product mix, and B) there are plentiful Accord V6s on dealer lots.

    That's all.

    "I would suggest that you review the comments made by the posters not as an advocate for any one side, but as a person who wants to provide helpful information about both vehicles and wants to share that information to others." Agreed, you do the same.

  • tinatinatinatina Posts: 388
    As far as my comment on the inventory, its pretty clear what I meant to that poster - that it did not have to do with sales (good or bad). You just assumed the negative. You need to cite my last paragraph in its entirety, which states, "In my area, several dealers have over 20+ Camrys in stock. However, only 1 or 2 of them are V-6s. Anyway best of luck with whatever you go with, and keep us informed." There's nothing hostile about the Camry in that sentence. So, I;m not even sure where you were going with taking issue in the first place.

    You made a review of the Camry -2007 disagreeing with another poster a few posts past, right? You indicated the following:

    "Steering feel (2007 Camry) has also improved, and one doesnt get the Buick impression that the wheel could be turned by a single pinky; its firmer but not artificially firm (as in some Nissans). It's not an Accord, but its probably a very agreeable compromise for the folks who own a previous generation Camry and others lookign for more feel. I did not have the opportunity to take any hard corners, but upon first impressions, I'd chose this vehicle easily over its predecessor. (No SEs were available that hadnt already been sold)."

    It appears to me that you are comparing the handling/suspension of the Camry to several other vehicles, especially when you state "It's not an Accord, but its probably a very agreeable compromise for the folks who own a previous generation Camry and others lookign for more feel." You may want to revise that portion/clarify this, if it is not correct.

    In my post, I only said the consensus of the magazines and several posters suggest that the Accord's suspension and handling is better than the Camrys, but the Camrys are catching up. This is substantiated by the Edmunds preview of the 2007 Altima, the shoot-out scores, several posters (including yourself - possibly based on your review?), and several other magazines. In my comment, I do not even assert that the Camry's suspension is way behind. So, there you go again, assuming something that does not even exist.
Sign In or Register to comment.