Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

mliong · October 2002

Yes, typo - 5 speed not six.

Maple - I'm sorry, I should have clarified that it was with the V6 engine, not the 1.8T.

The Chrome accent changes were one of those things that people either loved a lot, or hated a lot. I happen to fall on the first category, they accentuate the curves and the style a bit better than the earlier style. But that's personal preferrence.

Interior-wise, I'd still rate the Passat's interior better than the Accord - again, personal taste.

The achilles heel of the Passat are its electricals, but I've heard that they have brought those gremlins under control - so I'm not surprised that your friend had those problems.

For a bullet-proof car, an Accord or Camry would be a better bet - but the new redesigns have their own first production year gremlins as well.

ghomaz · October 2002

Just curious, but if you already had a Camry and you wanted a "driver's car" why did you get a Passat AWD and not a BMW AWD since they are in the same price range? Surely a BMW is a much better handler than a Passat!

hiflyer · October 2002

Yes, a fairly stripped down 180 h.p. 325ix (with one or two options) will retail about the same price as a loaded 190 h.p. GLX 4Motion. The BMW will presumably handle better, but it is also smaller than the Passat (and the Passat arguably offers a better AWD system). Oddly enough, some of the reviews of the 325ix haven't been very flattering.

So just because a vehicle may offer better handling doesn't make it necessarily better overall.

ghomaz · October 2002

I guess you're right, though size shouldn't be an issue since steveiowa already has a Camry. But I am guilty of almost the same thing. Since I already have a 2001 Accord LXV6 (rational, value-for-money choice), I bought myself a 1998 Mercedes-Benz starmark certified E320 two weeks ago. I looked at the BMW 5 series also and though the BMW is rated higher, I just loved the solid feel and elegant look of the Benz. Also, the E320's trunk space is much larger!:)

visionxp · November 2002

i'd go with the Passat if i were you because it's the best car from all 3 we're comparing here for several resons. it has better quality, better interior, better materials, better comfort, better performance, better handling and i could go on and on but i think you get the picture.

however i'm quite surprised how people talk about the VW brand and have no ideea what they are saying. People, VW changed a lot since the mid 90s and right now they're making one of the best cars in the world believe it or not.

there's no way that a honda accord be a better car than the passat and if you really think that i suggest you drive a new passat and compare the 2 cars(performance, interior, exterior, handling)
AND ONLY then if you still think that hondas or the toyotas are better cars (i doubt it) you can actually say that but untill then you're way off on the subject.

maxamillion1 · November 2002

Reliability, Features, and PRICE!

The Passat still just has average reliability, the Accord and Camry, on the otherhand, have excellent reliability. The Passat GLS doesn't even offer a power driver's seat, automatic climate control, and some other features. Sure it has some nice interior materials, the styling is nice, but it's getting LONG in the tooth (IMO) and styling and such is VERY subjective. I have an aunt who is 21 years old (I am 17) and she prefers the looks of the Camry, Altima and Accord to the Passat. Roominess is also an area where the Accord and Camry beat the Passat.

Styling isn't everything, and performance doesn't got to the Passat. Only the 4 cylinder Passats beat the Camry and Accord, the V6 Accord would kill the Passat V6. Heck for the price of a Passat GLS with leahter, I could buy an Accord EXV6. So when it comes to downright value the Accord and Camry are better values, now how much better of a value is up to the person who decides, but personally I think the Accord is a better value than BOTH the Camry and the Passat.

visionxp · November 2002

ok lets look at the facts here ... looking at the 2002 models of both the passat and the accord(both V6) there's only a 10hp difference between the 2 and btw i still think that the passat could take the accord. the second thing is that looking at the warranties the passat kills the accord in every single one.
also even though it might not have power driver's seat and automatic climate control they can be ordered as options. neither does the honda have a tiptronic automatic tranny and that german car feel and handling.

so as i said ... i'd take the passat any day over a camry or an accord.

oh and i almost forgot ... you dont see a passat every 30 seconds when you drive on the road like you see the accords and the camrys so that gives it quite a unique feeling.

talon95 · November 2002

The last enthusiast magazine test that put the Accord V-6 against the Passat V-6 that I'm aware of was in 2000. Both cars had the same V-6 engines as the 2002 models. Here's their performance results:

Accord:

0-30 mph: 2.9 sec.
0-60 mph: 7.6 sec.
0-100 mph: 20.6 sec.
1/4 mile: 16.0 sec. @ 88 mph

Passat:

0-30 mph: 3.2 sec.
0-60 mph: 8.6 sec.
0-100 mph: 22.8 sec.
1/4 mile: 16.7 sec. @ 87 mph

Other tests I've seen place them closer, but if you're talking auto tranny versions, I think it's debatable that the Passat could take the Accord. And that's with the 200 hp. Accord V-6. Of course, with the 2003 Accord with 240 hp., the Passat would be eating the Accord's dust. According to the latest issues of C/D, the 2003 Accord V-6 will even outaccelerate a Passat W-8.

Other comments from C/D on the 2000 Accord:

"Superb refinement, excellent performance, a well-designed interior".

"Everything about the Accord feels finely sculpted and polished."

As for scoring, the 2 cars tied on the following:

Engine: 9 (out of 10)
Transmission: 9
Brakes: 9
Handling: 9
Ride: 9
Driver comfort: 9
Fit and finish: 9
Fun to drive: 9

If the Passat has "that German car feel and handling", it sure didn't leverage them to beat the Accord in these subjective areas in this test.

Areas where their scores differed:

Features and amenities:

Accord: 9
Passat: 10

Value:

Accord: 9
Passat: 8

Styling:

Accord: 7
Passat: 9

The amenities vs. value is understandable, since the tested Passat GLX was $3300 more expensive than the tested Accord EX.

Styling? Well, whatever floats your boat. But it turns out that this highly subjective category was primarily responsible for the Passat just squeaking out a 95 to 94 point photo finish over the Accord. The article essentially said as much. They really liked both the Passat and the Accord very much.

I agree that the Passat is a very nice car, but is it worth the premium over the Accord? That's for each of us to decide, but I'd say no.

It'll be interesting to see how well the Passat maintains its "bargain Audi" image when the next redesign comes out. Word has it that it will no longer share a platform with the Audi A6 or any Audi, for that matter. The next gen will share a transverse engine platform with the Jetta. It's obvious that many of the qualities that make the Passat such a successful design are an outcome of its Audi heritage. The Jetta is a far more mundane, mainstream design, at least with this generation. So the Passat will lose the "Audi advantage" that it currently enjoys. Instead of being the lower end version of a premium platform, it will be the high end of a mainstream platform. Sounds like just as the Japanese manufacturers are going increasingly upscale, VW is looking to go in the other direction.

maxamillion1 · November 2002

A power driver's seat and climate control are not optional on the Passat GLS. Never has been. You'd have to get a GLX, which is thousands more than the EXV6 Accord. True, there is only a difference of 10 hp between the 2002 Accord V6 and Passat V6, but I thought we were comparing the 2003 models.

8u6hfd · November 2002

It all boils down to personal taste.

For the 03 models...

Mine are:
1. Passat 1.8T
2. Camry SE
3. Accord
4. Altima

If age matters...I'm 24.

mliong · November 2002

The Passat GLXs aren't just power seats, they are also memory seats. The thing that surprised me the most was that the memory seats are TIED to your FOB! So it self-adjusts depending on the driver's FOB! Now, that's neat!

For the 2003s, I would probably lower the Accord's reliability rating to average - owing to first year production problems - but it will change drastically next year, and the year after.

IMHO, after looking at all three cars (V6 models - all top trim levels), I would rank them:

Performance: (Acceleration, HP, et al)
1 - Accord
2 - Camry
3 - Passat

Reliability:
1 - Camry (2nd production year)
2.5 - Accord (first production year)
2.5 - Passat

Interior: (refinement, style)
1 - Passat
2 - Accord
3 - Camry

Exterior Sytling (subjective)
1 - Passat
2 - Accord
3 - Camry

Driving pleasure (again, VERY subjective)
1 - Passat
2 - Accord
3 - Camry

Value
1 - Camry (can get for less than MSRP)
2.5 - Passat (you can get good discounts)
2.5 - Accord (no discounting yet)

If I had to buy a car today, I would go for the Passat, but in two years, the Accord - definitely.

Just my two cents.

manamal · November 2002

just to add:

smothness of ride:
(inhibits car sickness)
1- camry
2- accord
3- passat

storage room
1- passat (wagon)
2- camry
3- accord

mliong · November 2002

Safety
1.5 - Passat - ESP, side curtain and head airbags
1.5 - Camry - same
3 - Accord - no ESP

ESP = Electronic stabilization program a.k.a. skid control

However, this might be moot - given how all three cars are really safe to begin with.

karl7777 · November 2002

Which is the better value for someone who doesn't drive much or fast, but is concerned with safety and reliability?

2003 Passat GL 1.8T/manual (with cold weather package)
2003 Accord LX/v6 w/side airbags

I been offered quotes on both that are almost the same.

Also, everyone keeps talking about the great interior on the Passat, but I wasn't very impressed by the GL's interior. Did they cut corners on GL?

Thanks!

manamal · November 2002

Honda wins on reliability...over VW anyway.
Is a tie between camry and accord...maybe camry is a little better.

1.8t engine blows turbos at about 70-80K

8u6hfd · November 2002

70-80k for turbo life?

I find that really hard to believe.

Overall reliability, Honda.

The Passat GL basically has less features than the GLS.

manamal · November 2002

I was told that the VW/Audi 1.8T turbo life is about60-80K....from a driver of a TT.

Frankly, IMHO, turbos should last as long as the
engine (SAAB's do!).

mliong · November 2002

If well taken care of, the Turbo engine should last at least 120K miles if not more.

The problems with Turbos isn't the design, but rather how the user treats it. Turbo engines need about 30sec to 120secs to cool down befor the engine is shut down - depending on how hard you drive it. Otherwise, the oil inside the turbo "cokes" and ruins the turbo - this is the number one issue our VW mechanic tells us as to why the see a Passat in the shop.

Some also claim that you may also want to wait about 30 secs to let the turbo warm up prior to driving (especially hard driving).

The GL's interior is like the GLS, but no Wood trim on the 1.8T, only the V6 engines - otherwise, no substantial differences in interior trim.

The main complaints with Turbo is the start-up and shut-down time, as well as the Turbo lag. If you like to accelerate quickly to speed, Turbo-lag will ruin it for you.

If you do decide to go Turbo, you will want to mate it with a manual transmission, instead of an automatic.

manamal · November 2002

Thanks for the info....In saab turbos (all saab engines are blown), the main thing is to let it cool about 30 seconds after hard driving.

And, with newer SAABs, the turbo-lag is minimal.

andys120 · November 2002

had no problems whatsoever with the turbo or motor. The transaxle and clutch were a another story.

They didn't even have intercoolers on '86 and '87 Saabs. Those make a big difference cuz heat's the thing that can hurt a turbo. Mechanically they're very simple.

andrewdna · November 2002

Last I read, Toyota's reliability was 3 defects per 100 cars vs Honda's 6; I hardly call that a tie. Matter of fact, Honda was 2-3 rungs beneath Toyota. I like the Honda Coupe's redesign but am hesitant about their tyranny.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134419350_CARSIDE13.html

visionxp · November 2002

i stillt hink the passat is a batter car overall but thats up to the buyer.

also i agree with manamal on this one because i own a honda accord and they seem to have pretty "jerky" transmissions(automatics). the manuals are very good though but theres one thing that seems weird to me ... the trannys on the civics seem to be way better(very smooth) than the ones on the accords.

go figure:)

bodydouble · November 2002

I've seen all sorts of criticism about Honda but never before about them being a tyrant!

allhorizon · November 2002

The Audi/VW 1.8T is a very mature, reliable engine that has received many awards. It has a low-pressure turbo that does not suffer from premature turbo failure. The turbo commonly lasts for the life of the engine if regular oil changes are performed.

Some people "chip" their cars and a fraction of them have had problems because of that. Even if a turbo fails, it is relatively inexpensive to replace, certainly cheaper than the price difference between a V6 and a V4. In addition, you get great mileage with the 1.8t, and it weighs less than a V6.

The design of turbos and their cooling systems have changed over the years, and idling is no longer necessary or recommended except for unusual circumstances (e.g., pulling over at a rest stop). It is a good idea to use synthetic oil, and when driven hard, to take it easy the last couple of miles (and the first couple of miles, as with any car).

Since the turbo is low-pressure, it has virtually no turbo lag. However, the combination of automatic and turbo does produce a noticeable lag. If performance is important, the manual is a much better choice with the turbo, or the CVT, as in the Audi.

- D

maple49 · November 2002

Thanks a lot. You just made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. Are you happy now?

mliong · November 2002

I also noticed that when it comes to isolating road noise, Honda does a pretty bad job of it - across their entire line.

Toyota does a good job of it in their Camry, but the Passat's is top notch - maybe a bit too top-notch, as it makes it harder to hear those really loud emergency vehicles!

visionxp is right - you really have to try out all three cars to see what you really like - and do take the time to check out the other Edmunds threads to see what potential problems you may want to look out for. I found it very informative and actually ran into one of them when test-driving the Camry!

dfong87 · November 2002

we recently bought a 2003 Accord and IMHO, Honda finally made some effort (and succeeeded!) to reduce noise in the cabin. that being said, i think that there is still considerable tire noise that is due in part to both the tire they chose and still less than adequate undercarriage sound insulation.

i have to disagree, however, a little with mliong.

based on my limited experience, i would say that of the three cars, the Camry wins, in my experience in terms of cabin quietness. i think this, unfortunately, is accomplished along with a lack of road feel and responsiveness. On the other hand, i think the 2003 Accord and 2001 and 2002 Passat's i've ridden in are about on par with each either in terms of quietness. [my friend has owned both...the former being totalled in a car accident] He rode in our 2003 Accord [he has 2000 Accord as well] and commented that it is much quieter than his Accord and about the same as his Passat. I would have to agree except for the more noticeable tire noise over scarred pavement in the Accord. only time will tell [when i replace the tires] whether i can improve upon that by moving away from the OEM Michelins.

Note: the Camry isn't *that much* quieter, but i do think it is the quietest of the three cars in terms of average ambient noise levels.
(I've ridden in a 2002 and all the previous generations which were significantly quieter than their Accord counterparts)

The quietest cars i've ever ridden in have been Lexuses: LS400 and LS430. very quiet. never driven one though, so i can't speak for "road feel" and driver feedback. our new Accord [again, except for occasional tire noise] is as quiet as my dad's 1991 Acura Legend.

as usual, just my experiences. YMMV.

8u6hfd · November 2002

VW tells you to idle the car for a few minutes after extended periods of driving and hard driving. It's in the owner's manual, under shutting off the engine.

andys120 · November 2002

I had my first good look at the new Accord yesterday. I like it much more than I thought I would. Here's how I'd rank them for styling:

1. Passat. For size and styling this car competes more with an A6 than the Camry or Accord both of which seem less substantial. I got the feeling there's a reason the Passat costs more.

2. Accord. The new look does imply a more sporty and agressive nature than past Accords. I haven't driven one to see if the machinery delivers what the styling promises.

3. Camry. A relatively sedate, some would say pedestrian look. Many think this car looks ugly but I find it merely boring.

You wouldn't buy any of these cars just for looks but IMHO the Passat comes close.

bodydouble · November 2002

hehe

dfong87 · November 2002

i agree with your synposis of the cars. The Passat is more substantial.

IMHO, i'm not sure if the new Accord is much more "sporty" in the driving experience compared with previous generations. i think they've improved on the ride [quietness and noise level]; the transmission is much smoother [automatic]; i think the steering and brakes are fairly characteristic of the "honda/acura" feel. solid, good communication of the road. Certainly sportier than the Camry, but not quite up to the level of the Passat or BMW. i think the best classification of the Accord is that it is a "sporty family sedan" as opposed to a "sports sedan." to me, it's always been better than the Camry in this regard.

the camry provides a very insulated experience, IMHO. i also agree, the styling is boring...nothing offensive, just nothing noteworthy. The new Accord [others will definitely disagree with me here] is sportier in styling than its predecessor, but Honda didn't take any major risks at hurting it's loyal conservative customer base.

The Passat, IMHO, looks a little sportier, but still, is on the conservative side...which is probably good. its looks will age fairly well.

But, in the end, we bought the Accord...not for its looks, but for its value. it drives very well, will hopefully hold to Honda's typical reliability standards, and costs significantly less than the Passat. The Camry offers similar value, but a very different driving experience. it all depends on the driver/owner preference when choosing between the Accord/Camry. both are fine cars.

if one is willing to spend a few extra bucks and perhaps a little less in reliability, the Passat is also a great car. (the Passat has decent track record according to Consumer Reports, but FWIW, in my small sampling of friends who own Passats 2000-2002 model years, 3 of 4 have had what i would classify as a "major defect" in their first year of ownership--2 electrical problems, 1 water pump. again, perhaps statistics of a small sampling...but certainly influenced my decision process)

mliong · November 2002

Electricals and the water pump appear to be the most common complaints of the car.

Electrical as it not even starting, but I also heard that this is intermittent.

IMHO, I don't think the average Accord buyer is the type who wants to buy a "Sporty" car, but the redesign is a good sign that Honda realizes that there's more to a car than merely a utilitarian function.

joq · November 2002

Consumers Reports says what us Camry owners already know, the new Camry quality has dropped. There are actually a lot of Korean and American cars that score better than the Camry now.

Consumer Reports spokesman said he "was surprised by the decline in scores for the Camry"

mliong · November 2002

Was it this month's issue?

Man, some of the Kia bashers are going to be eating crow after this gets out...

ironmanterp · November 2002

The Camry was reported as falling to average in reliability in an AP wire story on Consumer Reports' latest survey ( http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/business/4469800.htm ).

Toyota attributed the fall to "complaints about minor issues with some aspects of

the car's interior and exterior trim" but noted that "(f)unctional reliability is not an issue." ( http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2002/0001837619&EDATE= ).

andys120 · November 2002

mliong · November 2002

it was the Hyundais

bodydouble · November 2002

Isn't KIA owned by Hyundai?

bodydouble · November 2002

Personally I think Camry quality has been slipping for a number of years (probably since 1997). But I guess, because of Toyota's reputation, it's taken this long for the media to lock on, or maybe to finally admit it. I think many in the media have always viewed Toyota as a sacred cow in terms of quality/reliability ratings.

ronsteve · November 2002

About 20-30 posts back, someone wrote about the last time C/D compared the Accord and Passat, which was in 2000. They incorrectly stated that the Passat's 9-7 win in the styling category was the reason it won the comparo 95-94 over the Accord. The "overall rating" is INDEPENDENT of the ratings in any of the categories, and probably just as subjective as the styling rating.

As for the merits of all three cars, I own an Accord, test drove a Passat, and my wife had a Camry as a rental for a few weeks after her del Sol (RIP) was totaled. If driving pleasure is your only concern find a del Sol

But seriously, the Camry truly does strike me as a Japanese Buick. I felt like I aged 30 years any time I got in that vehicle. With the 4-cylinder engine I cannot think of a more uninspiring vehicle...mediocre power, lacking in refinement, and oh-so-boring.

The Accord sedans also struck me as very mom-and-pop. I ended up going with the Accord EX-V6 coupe, which I don't see another one of every 30 seconds on the highway. I could have done without the leather, but the comfort and power of the Accord are excellent.

The Passat is a very good car. I test drove a GLS 1.8T when I was shopping for my car, and it drove very nicely. The Tiptronic is nice to have, especially for someone who would like to shift on their own terms. Reliability was a bit of a concern, but it was little issues such as convenience items and control placement that proved to be the Accord's trump card.

If I was to compare 2003 models with V6 power, I think the Passat would find itself outgunned by a 240-hp Accord.

kennyg5 · November 2002

Sorry to intrude on the Camry-Accord-Passat board. IMHO, the Maxima probably edges out in the area of reliability and, above all, it has a much more powerful engine. Maxima used to compare head on with its two Japanese brethen, but since Nissan introduced the new Altima, the Max's status seemed to have been elevated.

talon95 · November 2002

"About 20-30 posts back, someone wrote about the last time C/D compared the Accord and Passat, which was in 2000. They incorrectly stated that the Passat's 9-7 win in the styling category was the reason it won the comparo 95-94 over the Accord. The "overall rating" is INDEPENDENT of the ratings in any of the categories, and probably just as subjective as the styling rating."

For the record, that was my post. Please re-read my quote about the styling below.

"Styling? Well, whatever floats your boat. But it turns out that this highly subjective category was primarily responsible for the Passat just squeaking out a 95 to 94 point photo finish over the Accord. The article essentially said as much. They really liked both the Passat and the Accord very much."

Nowhere did I say anything about how the styling "points" affected the final score. I never said that if they would have added 2 points to the Accord's styling score that the Accord's overall score would have increased by 2. I've been reading C/D for many, many years, and I'm fully aware of the fact that their overall rating is not a total of the scores in the individual categories.

As for my statement that the styling grade was the deciding factor, the article says "Only the Accord's charisma lobotomy keeps it out of the lead in this contest." Other comments and scores make it very clear that this refers to its exterior styling.

Anyway, before you say that someone else is making incorrect statements, don't put words in their mouth to make your statement "true".

mliong · November 2002

I agree with the statement that the Passat really loses out to everyone on the Horsepower war - but I doubt they will lose much sales because of that. This is a family car, so I doubt that that is a significant selling point for its market audience.

Just my two cents.

stoli25 · November 2002

is one of my biggest problems with this car. I test drove max/accord/Camry and none of them drives like Passat (road feel- I'm not talking here about power). Reliability that's what holding me from buying one.

btw:
when new/redesign Passat is coming to NA?

talon95 · November 2002

... but it will probably be a significantly different vehicle, since rumor has it that it will no longer share a platform with the Audi A6, but will share a new transverse engine platform with the Jetta.

mliong · November 2002

is the date I also heard.

Less sharing with the Audi class, but I also heard that it will share even less with the Jetta - so noone can come up to you and say "Nice Jetta" to your Passat!

Reliability has been a great concern for us, but the mechanic said it was pretty reliable, and each visit to the dealership seems to bear this out (very few Passats).

Also, with the Accord now undergoing teething problems, and the Camry still trying to lock down the previous year's teething problems, my wife and I decided to take the plunge.

It's a great car so far, but still too new to tell.

kingdomcome1 · November 2002

what kind of people are writing on this board.
what do you really know about camry or honda.
do any of you own either of the cars. i own
a camry and have own one since i left college some
ten years ago. great car then great one now. so there. i am not seeking to insult any ones intelligence, if i did im am sorry

philbert · November 2002

According to the recently released J.D. Powers long term durability survey (4-5 year old cars), the rankings are:

1. Lexus

2. Infiniti

3. Acura

4. Honda

5. Toyota

6. Porsche

7. Buick

8. Cadillac

9. Jaguar

10. BMW

Mercedes and Audi were below average, but the article didn't mention all nameplates that were below average. VW is not in the top ten, and I think there's a strong chance that they too are below average.

Based on this information, the reputation for quality that Honda and Toyota enjoy is clearly not a myth, and VW is definitely not in the same league as Honda and Toyota in terms of reliability.

http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=3965

philbert · November 2002

"Audi, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, GMC, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jeep, Kia, Land Rover, Mitsubishi, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Suzuki, Volkswagen and Volvo all scored below the industry average of 3.55 problems per vehicle." (I think they mean 355 problems per 100 vehicles)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021122-033146-2877r

kennyg5 · November 2002

I am surprised that Nissan (one of the BIG Three Japanese nameplates) is not included, unless it is subsumed under Infiniti (which does not seem to make sense because Toyota and Honda are not subsumed under Lexus and Acura). I personally believe a more useful reliability rating should be based upon specifc car models (rather than based upon manufacturers) so that a consumer can better gauge whether his or her car is better or worse than other cars in the same class (such as Camry vs. Accord vs Passat).

Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles