Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

1131416181935

Comments

  • ironmanterpironmanterp Member Posts: 57
    JD Power studies show that there can be a huge difference in quality and reliability between models within the same make. Consumer Reports even goes so far as to recommend certain trim within certain models, like when they listed the '00-'01 Passat 1.8T cylinder as a reliable used car buy in the 2003 Buying Guide, but didn't extend the recommendation to the '00-'01 2.8 6 cylinder model.
  • 03honda03honda Member Posts: 96
    Didn't Consumer Reports rate the Passat as its top family sedan? Wouldn't that mean it's reiliable?
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    has all these different categories they rate cars under, and for many Passat was at the top. But they did not recommend it because of sub-par reliability, and in the text of their discussion of the car, they had their standard disclaimer "unfortunately, while it is a great car, we cannot recommend it because of below-average reliability".

    And BTW kenny, Nissan is surprising in that Infiniti reliability is tops on the list, but Nissan-branded cars score way down the list, not even in the top 10. This is as opposed to Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura, where both brands tend to score near each other on the list.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • ironmanterpironmanterp Member Posts: 57
    Both the 2002 1.8 4 cylinder and 2.8 V6 Passats were rated as reliable are rated as CR's top recommended new car buys for 2002 - 2003. In fact, both have been consistently rated average or above in overall reliability since '99.

    The difference noted was in CR's reliable used car ratings. The only significant difference in the trouble spot rating section was a below average rating for the '99 V6 for the power equipment category which covers electronic accessories. Yet the 4 cylinder was singled out for the reliable used car buy list for '00-'01 while the V6 was left off entirely. Go figure - that must be one of the categories CR weighs heavier than others in their ratings.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    engine is the most heavily weighted category for the recommended list. You sometimes find cars that are recommended even though the little chart is FULL of big ominous black dots, but the line for engine is all nice little red dots. Makes sense I guess - engine is the component that would probably cost you the most to repair, with transmission a close second. All that other stuff on the list would be stuff that would cost less than $500 to repair a problem.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • ironmanterpironmanterp Member Posts: 57
    The only difference came in the power equipment category, for things like mirrors, sunroofs, window, locks, cruise control, seats, audio, etc. Those items should have been shared with both models. The only thing I can figure is that the 1.8 must not have had those accessories that were troublesome available while the V6 did or the 1.8 owners didn't typically order them while the V6 owners did.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    VWs are all sold pretty loaded up. Most seem to have moonroofs, and don't they all have power windows and mirrors standard?

    I think the difference was that they were not manufactured in the same place, and used local suppliers for those parts.

    I am curious what they will make of the current ignition coil debacle on the 1.8T engine only. Will that problem go under the "engine" category? Or is that under something different?

    What was the problem that made reliability worse than average for the 2.8L 6-cylinder engine?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • mariner7mariner7 Member Posts: 509
    overcooked wet noodles!

    Please see the NYT car review for more details.
  • ironmanterpironmanterp Member Posts: 57
    ...above average in '99, excellent in '00 - '01. The engines didn't cause a deviation in ratings between the two. The only slightly worse rating for the V6 model was the power equipment category where the I4 model was rated average. It's a mystery all right.

    There is an ignition category which coils are rated under.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,369
    of $25k Sedans in the NY Times today (11/24).
    Nine magazine road testers participated and the Times published combined rankings of nine different cars.

    The #1 Mazda6i (2.3 i4) beat all the cars mentioned in the title of this board mostly because the testers really liked it's handling and interior styling.

    Second was the Passat GL (1.8T) also well liked for handling and strong body integrity.

    The Accord EX finished #3 with much praise for it's handling feel followed by the Altima 2.5S and the Chevy Impala LS (which reviewers thought was more fun than they'd expected).

    The Camry LE was #6 with much disparagement of it's limp handling and some regard for it's good finish.

    Three other cars finished behind these and you can get the details at nytimes.com, click on "automobiles at top left.

    Remember, don't shoot the messenger. I haven't driven any of these cars but I'm anxious to get my hands on a Mazda6, particularly when the awd Mazdaspeed 6S comes around next year.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    And the Camry remains as the Passat's arch nemesis, as a very slim margin separates the two, for both V6 and I4 models
  • confuseddesiconfuseddesi Member Posts: 23
    Camry is actually derived from the Japanese Kan-Muri, which means "Crown.

    Thx
  • yatittleyatittle Member Posts: 13
    Let's see if I got this right. Price difference with auto Xmission is $3000. For this you get big engine, rear disk brakes, traction control and power driver seat. Right? Question- Is it a better padded, more comfortable seat? Also, my only experience with a four was a Merc Mystique rental in Fla. Hated it-downshifted every time I hit the gas. Is this a problem with the Accord 4?? Thank you Mike M.
  • tblazer503tblazer503 Member Posts: 620
    sounds about right...
    V6EX vs V6LX you get dual A/C, side curtain airbags, lumbar support on the driver seat, interior accents, CD w/ 6disc in dash changer, leather, illumintated window controls(wierd.) and electronic brake distribution.
    I4LX vs V6LX you also get Side air bags, steering wheel audio controls.
    I4 vs V6 (LX) is $3000 difference
    V6 Ex vs V6 Lx is $2800 difference

    You also may want to consider the I4 EX 5AT, it's a happy medium and will give you most of the V6 add-ons +extras w/o the engine.

    Good luck
  • zigzag7239zigzag7239 Member Posts: 40
    I've owned two VW's so I pay attention to the reliability surveys. CR likes the Jetta/Golf platform but just dropped it from the recommended list because reliability has dropped below average. This is consistent with my own experiences. The Passat is still recommended because it has maintained an average reliability rating, however the trend appears to be down rather than up, especially as the car ages. This is also consistent with my experience. It's too bad, because I like the cars very much, but at present I intend to go with an Accord. The new Accord is still a bit more sedate than the Passat, but it has a number of its own advantages, projected reliability being one.

    I agree that it would be helpful for J.D. Power to break its ratings down by model, but the regrettable fact remains that VWs in general are simply not as reliable long-term. This is not so important for 3-year lease types, but it matters to people who like to keep their cars longer. And VW's new, longer warranty is little comfort to me - I don't want the car to have to go into the shop in the first place, even if it's covered by a warranty.

    It's also true that any given Honda can be a lemon and any given VW can be a peach. All you can do is play the odds.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    new VW owners (Mercedes too, in the case of the ML320) are having significant numbers of problems in their first 18 months of ownership, so I would say it IS a matter of concern even to those 3-year-lease types!

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    would be so much more attractive as an option if they would put the manual in the V-6. I believe you can get a Passat 6-cyl with a manual, and the Honda (the "driver's company") really should have one too.

    Besides, now that they have done the engineering for the 6-speed in the coupe, why not extend that powertrain to the rest of the sedan line-up?

    I would say Toyota should do the same for the Camry, but really, would the demand be there, given that it is a lot less involving drive? I cheered to see that Toyota had kept a manual in the line-up for 4-cylinder cars, but just try to find one out there on the Toyota dealership lots of America. IMPOSSIBLE! I don't think Camry manuals are very popular.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    it's automatic only for the Passat if you want 4Motion.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    it is very common among all models and brands to find automatic as the only option on 4WD models.

    But you can get the non-4WD Passat V-6 as a manual, right?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    yeah you can
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,369

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    If I could afford an Audi...I'd get myself an Audi quattro
  • yatittleyatittle Member Posts: 13
    Just came in yesterday's mail, and they rave about the I4 Accord (0 to 60 in 9 flat). Maybe I should re-think my need for a V6. The $3000 savings could make the difference between cash and financing. Do I really need 240 horses on flat, congested Long Island? Thoughts, anyone?? Thanks, Mike
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    was that automatic or 5-speed manual?
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,369
    that could make 0-60 under ten was considered fast, today it's nothing. Considering your handle you probably remember back then. I was a big Y.A. fan too. On the other hand- Long Island!..there's no way to take advantage of 240hp today.

    Before I went with the 4 I'd take a test ride over to the Cross Island or Southern State to see if I thought it had enough juice to merge comfortably with traffic on those ridiculously short ramps.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • zigzag7239zigzag7239 Member Posts: 40
    Ten years ago a car with 160 HP was considered sporty. Don't even get me started about twenty years ago.

    I'm amazed at how much attention people give to split-second 0-60 time differences and to horsepower. You'd think they were all about to enter the Indy 500, and that nobody was ever able to get on a freeway with less than 200 HP.
  • philbertphilbert Member Posts: 21
    I agree that it would be nice if JD powers broke out the manufacturer scores by model type. However, keep in mind that for Honda, the Accord and Civic account for a high percentage of their sales, and for VW, the Passat and Golf/Jetta also account for a high percentage of their sales. On the other hand, even if the Prelude or the Eurovan were the most unreliable cars on the planet, it would be difficult to skew the overall manufacturer scores because they account for such a small percentage of sales. Therefore, I believe that there is a high correlation between the overall Honda score and the Accord and Civic and the overall VW score to the Passat and Golf/Jetta.

    For a manufacturer like Chevy or Ford, or even Toyota, that manufacturers many more different models than Honda and VW, this may not be true. The Mercedes ML320 was able to skew the overall Mercedes score because their overall sales are much lower than Honda and VW.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    ... but cars also weigh about 50% more than just a few years back. That's why a mid-size car with under 160hp (180 for auto transmission) or so feels sluggish.

    However, I agree, with so many choices above 200hp it is starting to look like it has become a marketing race.

    Still, I think there is a place for sports sedans and wagons, and with the added weight, some cars/manufacturers are falling behind.

    - D
  • talon95talon95 Member Posts: 1,110
    "... but cars also weigh about 50% more than just a few years back."

    I don't think this is true... what's your point of comparison for "a few years back"? Can you cite some examples?
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    50% is a little steep of a figure.

    Let's say the current camry weighs 3500 lbs (hefty estimate...)...50% is 1750 lbs. My old 88 Camry weighed little more than 3000 pounds.
  • yatittleyatittle Member Posts: 13
    Next question,with a four and auto xmission, is there a noticeable drop-off in power when using the air conditioner?
  • manamalmanamal Member Posts: 426
    My camry weighs a little over 3100 lbs...
    Not a 50% increase from 1988.

    The smaller cars are getting bigger, though...at least hondas.

    My 1984 Civic was about 1900 lbs, an '03 civic is
    2400 lbs. that is a 25% increase....

    The amazing this is the cars a much bigger on the inside, but get the same gas milage.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    but it also means that your choices if you want a little car for commuting or whatever are becoming more ad more limited all the time.

    I wish they would bring a couple of the minicars here from Europe or Japan. I heard a while back they might be considering this.

    Right now the only little car you can get is the Mini.

    Lighter is better! :-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • toyotakentoyotaken Member Posts: 897
    The biggest problem with this is the increasing level of safety measures needed to get a car on the road today. It's hard enough already, but when you get any smaller than an echo or similar sized vehicle, there is only a limited amount of space that can be use for crumple zones and to protect the occupant. The old civics, tercels, sentras, etc. of yesteryear would fare not very well using today's test measurements for safety.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    50% more weight now is not as unrealistic as you think. Of course it depends on your age, and what you consider "a few years" back.

    Hondas and Toyotas may not have gained as much as some other brands.

    1992 GTI 2346 lbs

    1997 GTI 2564 lbs + 9%

    2002 GTI (2.8lVR6) 3011 lbs +28%

    2003 Golf R32 (3.2lVR6) ~3420 lbs +46%

    There are numerous more examples, just go to Edmunds' great historical resources, as I did.

    Tan: "Let's say the current camry weighs 3500 lbs (hefty estimate...)...50% is 1750 lbs."
    Tan, before you start criticizing others, get your math straight. I said 50% more, now. That is, the original car would have been 2333 lbs, not 1750. Using your convenience math, you made an error of 33%.

    I agree that some cars have gained less, but they still are significantly heavier:
    1990 Toyoto Camry base model: 2690 lbs
    2002 XLE V6 Camry 3362 lbs +25%

    If you are wondering about my engine choices, that is part of the entire point. More powerful engines have and needed to become available with newer cars, which in turn has made them heavier, as well.

    - D
  • talon95talon95 Member Posts: 1,110
    Here's the % of weight increase for a number of fairly mainstream cars from 1993 to 2003:

    Accord - 10%
    (changed class from compact to midsize)
    Camry - 3%
    Intrepid - 10%
    Regal - 5%
    Taurus - 9%
    Golf GL - 10%
    Civic - 6%
    Corolla - 9%
    Passat - 8%

    These figures are from Edmund's, using base engine, medium level trim. For these cars, that's the big sellers. If there wasn't a medium level trim, I used base trim. Formula was (2003 weight - 1993 weight)/1993 weight.

    Yes, weight has been increasing, but 50% is definitely WAY, WAY on the extreme end. Not a single one of these mainstream cars has had a weight increase of over 10%.

    I don't deny that cars are somewhat heavier than 10 years ago, but you originally said:

    "... but cars also weigh about 50% more than just a few years back."

    The facts just don't support that blanket statement... even your own followup post shows only one example that comes even near to that 50% figure.

    Is a ~10% increase "significant"? Well, for one thing, given how much attention is paid to government crash tests, I'm not surprised to see cars being "beefed up" to do better in them. I'm sure that results in some of the weight gain.
  • sschilfsschilf Member Posts: 63
    Hey,

    Can anybody tell me of some good articles (CR, Car and Driver, etc) that compare the 03 Altima 3.5, Passat GLX, Accord V6, and Camry V6. These are the mainstream sedans today that I am interested in. I do not want to look at another Ford product, ie, Mazda 6. It's a shame that a reputable company like MAzda has to use a Ford engine in a product that they help will save the company!! Oh well! I wish them luck!

    Thanks for your help!
  • tblazer503tblazer503 Member Posts: 620
    I think that you are comparing apples to oranges on your '90 Camry to '02 Camry despite the same name.

    the '90 was a base model.
    Wild stab in the dark, its missing a few decently heavy things that the '02 XLE V6 had.
    Side Air Bags
    Air Conditioner
    Alloys vs Steel Wheels
    Air Bags
    Cruise Control
    Stereo(w/ speakers)
    ABS
    Full size spare vs. compact spare
    Power windows
    Power locks

    The Camry LE for '02 weighs in at 3082 lbs. w/ I4 5MT but it still comes with many of the features that the V6 XLE comes with. The camry has also grown 6.9" in length, 3.3" in width, and 3.8" in height since '90(which is about 20-30% all the way around). Considering that, the now 392# is well worth it when you get all the safety equipment, 30% more HP, and all the convenience features. In fact, I'm kinda surprised that it hasn't gained more weight.

    Just had to be the devil's advocate =o)
  • talon95talon95 Member Posts: 1,110
    The articles you're looking for don't really exist yet. The closest thing at this point is the recent CR test of the 2003 Accord, Legacy and Saturn L with 4-cyl engines. They promise a test of the V-6 Accord in an upcoming issue... don't know what other cars will be part of that comparison. Since the Mazda 6 missed the 4-cyl comparo, I think it's a safe bet that it will be in the V-6 test.

    The other Accord tests of which I'm aware are mostly individual tests, rather than head-to-head with the competition. Each article has something to say about how the Accord compares to selected competitors... mostly the Passat because Honda targeted that car in some respects, and the Altima because of the "HP wars" with the V-6 engines. Some individual tests are on Edmunds, CarPoint, New Car Test Drive and in Car and Driver. Motor Trend also tested the Accord V-6 vs. the Mercedes CLK320, which is probably of limited value to you based on your requirements.
  • toyotakentoyotaken Member Posts: 897
    The other thing is that you're not comparing comparable sized vehicles. The '90 Camry was smaller and was less equipped than the current Corolla. BY ALOT! In '90, the 4cyl camry had 93 HP, had no airbags, probably had casette and air conditioning (based on how most were sold) and had LOTS of issues with rust around the wheel wells in particular. The '03 Corolla is quite a bit larger than the Camry was in '90 but now has standard Air conditioning, power mirrors, CD player, tilt wheel, split folding seats, rear head restraints, along with a host of other safety measures. A much better comparision would be the Camry in 1990 to the Corolla today. The only car that would come close to comparing to the current Camry in 1990 would be the Cresida.
  • zigzag7239zigzag7239 Member Posts: 40
    I suppose what it really comes down to is: have 0-60 times increased for ordinary cars like the Accord over the last 10-15 years? It seems to me that people's expectations have increased - thus we see people fighting over split-second 0-60 time differences in family sedans. I remember when it wasn't such a concern. And in the reviews, I'm always seeing references to freeway merging. I've driven cars tiny-to-huge for 30 years and have never really had any trouble merging onto freeways, but now it seems to be a preoccupation. We seem more power-hungry. I'm not complaining about it - just an observation.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    what I would like to see is that exact same list, where weight increase averaged 10% (or maxed at 10%, or whatever) and see how much the models compared have increased in peak hp output. I will bet it is a lot more than 10%. That 93 hp base camry now has 157 hp right? That is about a 60% increase.

    If memory serves, corolla back then was about 105 hp, now it is 130, so that is slightly less than a 25% increase in power.

    toyotaken's point is well taken - many of these cars have changed their position in the market, becoming bigger cars than they were then, but that is part of the problem. People haven't gotten much bigger, families have if anything shrunk in size in the U.S., and I can't believe that the amount these cars (like camry) have grown can be commensurate with the added safety equipment that is required today. The '90 camry WAS about the size of today's corolla, so the difference in size now is a good 25% or more. Are we suggesting that the addition of a safety cage and crumple zones requires a 25% bump in size? How can that be when echo has met federal safety requirements too, and is half the size?

    I think the obvious answer is that in the U.S. market bigger is better (SUVs prove that, don't they?) and horsepower wars are a must to woo consumers.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • talon95talon95 Member Posts: 1,110
    Since I posted the weight increases, here are the horsepower increases in base engines:

    Accord - 28%
    Camry - 17%
    Intrepid - 31%
    Regal - 43%
    Taurus - 11%
    Golf GL - 0%
    Civic - 13%
    Corolla - 13%
    Passat - 27%

    So, with one exception, the horsepower increases have exceeded the weight increases.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    that one exception won't be an exception for long...how long do you suppose VW will keep the 115 hp base engine for the golf? In that size and price bracket, Golf is now the very lowest-powered car. I am all for it, but alas, VW will follow market trends and up the ante soon, I am sure.

    The rest of the cars prove my point: they all increased power more than they increased their weight, some dramatically! (Regal at 43% increase? - whew!)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    I had a gen 2 Camry V6 (88.5), though with the 5-speed...weighed about 3000 pounds (slightly less). Add the automatic transmission, you're closer to 3200 lbs.

    sorry my math ain't right all the time....with if I have an engineering degree....
  • navigator3740navigator3740 Member Posts: 279
    I heard on one board that Toyota actually hired away a stylist from Buick to design the new Avalon. Looks like Honda made him a better offer to redesign the new Accord. But he did a better job for Toyota, I think.
  • mariner7mariner7 Member Posts: 509
    that Toyota and Honda are fighting over!
  • madelman1madelman1 Member Posts: 1
    I am trying to decide between buying the Passat GL or Accord EX-V6. My main concerns are reliability and safety features such as side air curtains and ABS. Any suggestions?
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    Both cars have them standard.

    Both cars also

    If you like stickshift...Passat GL

    Automatics....both have 5-speed automatics

    Fog lights...both don't have them

    Passat doesn't have:
    Alloy wheels
    Leather Interior
    Sunroof
    Automatic Climate Control
    etc....
  • atlantabennyatlantabenny Member Posts: 735
    hi, just looked at consumer reports' reliability ratings of past years' models of the 2 cars. accord's reliability looks much better than passat's from model year 99, with passat still showing worrisome areas in "power equipment," and to a lesser extent, hardware, brakes, suspension and fuel systems.

    seems to confirm owner feedback from family members and friends on their vw vehicles (jettas, not passats) about those problems.

    the passat body should also be changing soon. sorry don't have info on safety equipment, but accord from latest news just got a 5-star safety rating.

    throw in resale, including consumer reports now ranking accord #1 over the passat and camry, and you've got a strong case favoring the accord.

    unless relative exclusivity and that "german feel" are high on your score card.

    good luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.