Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

alpha01 · November 2004

The G6 GT and Mazda 6s are sporting models of their lines, the Galant LS, Camry XLE V6, and Altima 3.5SL are the luxury oriented ones, and the LaCrosse CXS is better suited to compete with the Five Hundred, since its pricing starts where the others in the group above trail off (ie... $29,000). IMO, thats a much less even bunch.

~alpha

rutger3 · November 2004

The primary difference here is the availability or lack of side curtain airbags. Toyota really missed the boat on this one bigtime and heads should roll at corporate. I drive a 99 camry(166k),and will be getting a new car soon, but just try and find a camry LE or SE with side airbags, it is nearly impossible here in N.J. Both cars are nice and have their pluses, but this is one area where I will not compromise, especially since I keep my cars a long time.

peter pan · November 2004

Yep!

I was unable to find any Camry SE and LE in Southern California with side and curtain airbags. The cars would have to be special order from factory with unknown wait time. The dealers were not interested to pursue these deals either!

These cheap airbags will reduce medical bills in the $300K to $500K easily and lost time and wages in the US in even minor accidents. My wife was broadsided in a 93 Camry by a pickup truck in Mid Oct. we are looking at $500K hospital bill while she still has not regained her memory and reasoning capabilities!

I agree some heads should roll at Toyota, especially the turkeys sitting fat and dumb in their headquarter in Torrance!

alpha01 · November 2004

How close are you to PA? All the Camry LE 4 cyls there are equipped with the Side Airbags and Curtains option, since thats a different distribution region. You will have 0 trouble finding an LE 4 with that option in that region. And if a dealer in NJ really wants your business, I dont understand why they shouldnt be able to swap (but your car will obviously have some miles on it).

I definitely agree, though- Toyota missed the boat on this one.

~alpha

maxamillion1 · November 2004

But many of the comparisons these car manufactures have aren't all that compartive either.

Hence the Car and Driver midsize sedan comparo....

And How they had a Motortrend Comparo with the Accord EXV6, Camry XLEV6, Galant GTS and Malibu LS

The galant GTS was the sporty car of that group while the mated it against the luxurious XLEV6 Camry.

On another note...Mazda has like two different versions of the Mazda6S for 2005....

Grand Touring---Luxury with All options and no body kit.

And then you have the Sport...with the sport body kit and all the other sporty options.

So, you could actually use the Mazda6s as a comparison now...but not last year.

And I still think the Buick should be used because it is not much bigger than the Grand Prix...which isn't bigger than the Altima or Camry I don't think.

But either way, I can't wait to see the car comparisons.

alpha01 · November 2004

did an odd comparo doesnt mean C/D should. I have always felt there was more parity in C/D comparisons than in others (with occasional lapses like the rather bizarre 10- family sedan test they did most recently in Feb 2003), and I'd rather have the field as close to one another as possible. Theres no real logical reason for a sporting version of one mid-size to be compared to the lux version of another, when both versions of both cars are offered.

The mfrs. will create comparisons to make their cars look better... hence, Mitsu's own comparison of the Galant GTS to the Camry XLE V6 (which I do like to point out did indeed outhandle and out-brake the Accord EX V6).

I still completely disagree with the inclusion of the LaCrosse CXS, given its price tag- why should GM have two entrants in a test and Ford and Dodge none, additionally?

~alpha

azguy · November 2004

My wife bought an '04 Camry LE- Special Edition < a limited LE that came in pearl white only, with a lot of extras, like 16" alloy wheels, birdseye accents, moonroof,ABS all around,etc. > and options on the car were side and curtain bags. She would not have bought it without. BTW, I have an '03 Accord LX V6 and it came w/ side bags. Too bad there were not curtain bags available, but I am so short that side bags will probably do the trick.lol We love both cars.
She swears the ABS saved her from an accident yesterday.

azguy · November 2004

Seems like about all the differences between the Accord and Camry have been mentioned, but I wanted to point out one that may not be important to a lot of people, but might interest some, especially those who are smaller of stature and/or have physical problesms. My Accord LX V6 is harder to steer than my wife's Camry LE. It just takes less strength to move the wheel in the Camry. Thus, it is somewhat easier to park and handle for some in tight situations. We love both cars, however.

maxamillion1 · November 2004

I just can't wait to see some comparisons...

either way it will be interesting...

mcgirl0730 · November 2004

In my personal opinion, it's all about preference. I don't think the Camry is better or the Accord is better.

i_luv_toyota · November 2004

I would prefer the Camry. The improvements made to it, most notably the new instrument panel, as well as the availablity of a new 5-speed automatic on 4-cylinder models, make it more attractive in the market, especially against the Accord.

The Accord is a nice car, but I don't feel it's up to Camry standards. I know that the Accord was designed to ride harder to compensate for it's handling abilities, but it's a little too hard compared to the Camry. The Camry has a smoother, more luxurious ride which I prefer. And I also think that with the 2005 Accord's revised taillights it looks like a 95 Buick Regal, they could've made them amber at least.

I like both cars, but the edge, for me anyway, goes to the Camry.

peter pan · November 2004

It may be just my perception, but there semm to be far more complaints about serious, functional problems in the Accord forums than the Camry.

jguo · November 2004

Sure, whatever floats your boat. I mean that literally

jguo · November 2004

Probably just your perception. If you go to the Camry's Problems & Solutions board, there are plenty of complaints.

You will even find plenty of complaints on Lexus cars. No car is perfect.

carzzz · November 2004

in general, all Camry got a "very smooth" ride (expt SE)!
"very smooth" = mushy! Lacking road feels!
Steering is also too soft, too light!

All i think camry is better than accord is
a rear center headrest
"overstyled" rear-end looking, and smaller truck!

carzzz · November 2004

"overstyled" rear-end looking, and smaller truck!

I was talking about accord!

ian721 · November 2004

I don't see any Accord on this list, CR's most reliable for 2004:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/08/pf/autos/cr_auto_reliability/inde- x.htm

The I4 Camry's #3 though, right after a Lexus and Acura.

talon95 · November 2004

Not to worry... the Accord is still ranked better than average, and is still one of their top recommendations. And it still outranks the Camry in owner satisfaction.

atlantabenny · November 2004

It's probably 2nd or 3rd to Camry in the mid-size sedan class. CR evaluates cars "clinically" like they do appliances, a good reality check for brand-loyalists and enthusiasts. A good thing, imo.

richards38 · November 2004

Because just about ALL cars have improved considerably over the last decade or two, the "average" car is quite trouble-free now.

Any vehicle rated above average, even if not WELL above average, is likely to be a very satisfying car to own.

I've been doing quite a bit of car shopping with a friend during the past few weeks and I've seen plenty of $30K to $40K vehicles that aren't any better than (nor in some cases as good as) my '04 Accord EX-L sedan with its pre-tax price of under $23K.......Richard

lmacmil · November 2004

We should expect our new cars to be reliable, regardless of price. Higher price should get us more luxury and better performance but not better reliability. Honda and Toyota have certainly figured this out but some of the other manufacturers haven't quite got it right yet.

Richard is correct though, the "average" car is much more reliable now than was the case 10 or 15 years ago.

peter pan · November 2004

Air Bags Prompt Recall of 257,616 Hondas

Nov 22,2004- Reuters

DETROIT (Reuters) - Japan's Honda Motor Co. (news - web sites) Ltd. (7267.T) is recalling 257,616 of its Accord sedans from the 2004 and 2005 model years because of potentially faulty air bags, U.S. federal safety regulators said on Monday.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (news - web sites) said a tear may occur in the driver's side front air bag of the Accords, increasing the risk of injury in a crash.

The recall is expected to begin on Dec. 6 and owners of the vehicles affected should contact the U.S. division of Honda at 1-800-999-1009.

OUCH!!!!

This airbag recall is gonna wipe out all Honda's profit for this year!

alpha01 · November 2004

Posting your opinions as fact!

How can you assume that the recall is going to "wipe out Honda's profit". Thats completely unfounded.

Drama, much?

~alpha

peter pan · November 2004

I never represented my estimation as fact!

A recall for airbag replacement would cost about $400 each, part and labor. Multiply that by 250K cars and Honda stands to lose $100M in profit this year.

It's my estimation. Don't knock it unless you come up with better estimates and rationale!

alpha01 · November 2004

I'm in Accounting and we built our stodgy image on the fact that all we do is estimate and provide rationale......

Here are your exact words:

"This airbag recall is gonna wipe out all Honda's profit for this year!"

My point is that that statement is a bit sensational. You did not provide any rationale or indication of an estimate. Your rebuttal does little by way of prove that the airbag recall "is gonna wipe out all Honda's profit", unless of course, you assume that Honda makes only $100M profit.

Heres an estimation:
Last year's US ONLY sales for the HONDA division only (excluding Acura) were 1,349,847 vehicles.

Lets say that each of those vehicles produced but $100 (unrealistically low) of Net Income for American Honda.

Total Income for the American Honda (Honda division only) for 2003 would then be $134,984,700.

Subtract out your 100M expense for the recall, and that still leaves 35 Million dollars of profit.

So, by my estimation, the airbag recall will hardly "wipe out all Honda's profit for this year".

~alpha

peterpan · November 2004

Here's my revised official statement on Honda's airbag recall:

OUCH!!!!

This airbag recall will likely wipe out most of Honda's profit for this year!

sd1228 · November 2004

We don't need to worry about Honda's profits.
They made 4.48 Billion $ net income on revenue of close to 79 Billion $.
100 million is pocket change for them, especially since they are growing the revenue by 15% per year. Their stock (which should reflect any changes in profit forecasts) barely moved despite of this news. In fact it closed higer for the week.
Moreover, the cost of recall is likely to be shared (or absorbed) by vendors/suppliers who was involved in airbag manufacturing.
Bottom line: This is not financial problem. May be a perception of quality/PR problem.

motownusa · November 2004

Maybe you ought to provide some evidence before you make your statements. Changing airbags isn't that big a deal and would hardly put a dent in Honda's profit. But you have this tendency of passing your own personal opinion (without any substantive evidence to back it up) as facts.

alpha01 · November 2004

You've noticed too? LOL

sd1228- Thanks for that info. All I could find in a quick search was Sales data. Should be noted that that info is worldwide, and for all of Honda's businesses, correct?

Happy Thanksgiving to everybody!

~alpha

motownusa · November 2004

Happy Thanksgiving !!! I am a bit depressed. Yesterday I sold my beloved 92 Camry with 134K miles. The car was absolutely flawless. By far the best car I have owned so far. Took me less than 48 hours to sell the car. Hard to believe that a 13 year old car is in such high demand.

alpha01 · November 2004

Question- why'd you sell it? And how is your 03 LE V6?

~alpha

motownusa · November 2004

The only reason I sold the old Camry was the cost of insurance; paying insurance for three cars ( I also have a 99 Corolla) was just getting too expensive. The things I missed in my 03 Camry are the courtesy lights on the front doors. Wonder why Toyota doesn't offer that feature in the LE version. Also the glove compartments in the 92 Camrys seems bigger than the current generation Camrys. I am just nit picking. The new Camry so far has been very reliable but then again it is less than two years old with only 18K miles.

sd1228 · November 2004

Yes alpha01, This statistics is worldwide. Found it on yahoo finance (finance.yahoo.com)
Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

talon95 · November 2004

Regarding the speculation of how much it will cost Honda to replace all of these airbags, the airbag itself isn't defective. A tear may occur on deployment because of contact between the airbag and the cover. So, as shown below, they won't be replacing the airbag, but will be installing a shield to prevent the contact between the airbag and cover from causing the airbag to tear.

Remedy:
DEALERS WILL INSTALL A PROTECTIVE FABRIC FLAP BETWEEN THE AIR BAG MODULE COVER AND THE INNER MODULE. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON DECEMBER 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT HONDA AT 1-800-999-1009.

I think it's reasonable to speculate that this fix will cost less than replacement of the airbag, but how much less only Honda knows at this point.

daveinphoenix · November 2004

OK I've agonized for months over the Accord EX-V6 4 dr with Nav vs Camry XLE v6 4dr w/nav sedan decision

Read for hours the discussions on both Camry and Honda boards and just returned from the Auto Show in Phoenix which didn't help much vs these forums, and there was no Camry XLE to sit in.

Overall I think I prefer the Accord but its a very close race. I will have to do some serious test driving hope can find both to rent for a day or so.

I like the Camry since I am a cushy ride person and like more power assist steering. I don't drive where hugging the road type handing is needed. The Honda most agree has a more "feel the road" ride.

I like the Honda for seemly overall better quality, trim, fit factors and the Navigation system seems a bit better.

But I'm still thinking I like cushy, soft more luxury ride (I'm old geezer in 50's and have no interest in being a sports car driver ! I've driven a 1998 Buick Regal LS since it was new.

But the determining factor may come down to tall person comfort (I'm 6-2 about 230 lbs).

When I sit in a Honda I think its just barely OK with headroom. If wish it came without the moonroof that seems to take a bit of headroom.

There are reports on the Honda forums of long trips by tall folks who say the Honda seats are very comfortable with great lumbar support for long rides.

I also researched Camry Avalon since I like some of its features. But with the new model not out till 2005 and Avalon's far higher price, I ruled it out.

However there are tall person discussion saying how terrible the Avalon is for driver comfort by two 6-2 drivers.

This seems odd since the specs on the Avalon show it has more front headroom, shoulder room than the Honda and the same front leg room than the Camry. But the drivers seat has no height adjustment on the Avalon, while the Camry and Accord do.

Tall Avalon folks noted also there is no telescoping steering wheel on the Avalon which is another part of the problem. I note the Camry also has no telescopic steering adjustment but the Accord does....

Looking on the Camry boards I don't find a tall driver discussion other than more than two years ago, where some folks said the Camry was more comfortable and some preferred the Honda Accord.

I don't suppose there are any tall folks here that have driven both these cars?

ian721 · November 2004

I think no matter what the issue you're always going to find differing opinions when it comes to Camry vs. Accord.

I'm 6'1" and have lots of headroom in the Camry (full power seat and no sunroof). Just today I had a friend who is 6'4" in the back seat and he was fine and even able to cross his legs. The power seat also makes lumbar comfort a breeze.

However, I would like a telescopic steering column because I put the seat so far back that the steering wheel sometimes seems far away.

You already know the solution -- test drive.

lejofo · November 2004

Does anybody have figures on the 0-60 times on the camry with the new 5 speed auto? I read somewhere the Accord comes in at 9.0 s with an auto. Is that pretty accurate?

mrmwave · November 2004

Some of us tall people (I'm 6'3", 230) have long trunks so we need more headroom, while some of us have long legs and need max legroom.

For me, I found two fit problems with all Camrys and Avalons: short seat bottoms, and no telescopic steering. As a result when I move the seat back to get comfortable, I have to lean forward to reach the wheel. Unacceptable.

I found the most comfortable car by far in this segment to be the Altima. I rented several and found that reports of quality issues were well founded. Scratch the Altima--although I still love them!

After much shopping and negotiating, I bought an Accord V6 sedan. My wife drives it every day, so I only get to drive it on weekends. Every time I get in, it feels a little small. Then, every time, after 2-3 minutes, it feels great. I have driven it on 4 hour trips, and it still feels great.

All that said, everything is subjective. The best thing you can do is to go on extended test drives, telling the salesman when he asks 'What will it take to get you to buy today?' that you need to spend at least an hour driving the vehicle to see if you are comfortable. After an hour, you will know.

Good luck.

rxanand · November 2004

I just bought a camry XLE V6 a couple of months ago. I am my early 40s but I value quietness and comfort a lot. On test drives, the equivalent Honda seemed to have much more road noise. Another big problem with the Accord for me was that the seat level seems to be a few inches lower. The Camry is definitely a taller car. When I take take my parents in my car, a higher seat position helps them get in and out more easily. So far, I have not regretted my choice. The comfort of the Camry is the only thing that makes my commute bearable.

richards38 · November 2004

The 9.0 zero to 60 time was for the 2003, 4 cylinder Accord sedan with AT tested by Consumer Reports. Some auto test websites show times slightly under 9.0 seconds (8.6 or a bit more).

The 4 certainly feels plenty fast to me--similar to a 1972 Buick Skylark V8 that I owned 20+ years ago and very quick. According to one website, that 350 cu. in. Buick had a 0 to 60 time of 9.1 seconds.

The V6 Accord's 0-60 time is about 7.5 seconds. Don't know about the Camry 4, but probably the same or slower......Richard

lmacmil · November 2004

The difference between the 4 and the 6 will not be notice so much in 0-60 (which isn't relevant to most real world situations) as in passing manuevers. When the V6 will be appreciated is on 2 lane rural roads when you need to get around some slow moving car. The other situation is a freeway merge when you are forced to slow down than need a burst of acceleration. If you've never driven a V6, the 4 will seem adequate. If you have, I can't imagine how you could go back.

lejofo · November 2004

I'd definitely would like the 6 cylinder, but due to my budget constraint I'm limited to the 4 banger. So I'm trying to get a fairly quick 4 cylinder and would like to see numbers on the new Camry vs. the Accord.

I test drove both and it feels like the Accord was noticeably faster. Kind of curious...how much faster. I was hoping the Camry with the new 5 speed auto would have matched the Accord.

alpha01 · November 2004

MT's best 0-60 for the Accord 5-speed auto and 4 cylinder is 8.5 seconds. MT's best 0-60 for the Camry 4cylinder, mated to the old 4 speed, was 9.2 (it was a test which actually compared the Camry 4 cyl auto the Camry 4 cylinder SE 5M).

For what its worth-I've actually test driven two of the Camrys with the 5A, and one felt stronger off the line than the other- I wondered why-- one was a PZEV (the slower) and the other was the ULEV-II version. I drove the PZEV in Jersey and the ULEV-II in PA. Neither felt stronger than the 4sp auto version that is in my family, but that ones broken in, and the ones I test drove werent.

~alpha

alpha01 · November 2004

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/08/pf/autos/cr_auto_reliability/

I say, good for Hyundai and its Sonata making the list of most reliable.

Notably absent on the list at the top: Honda Accord (4 and V6), Toyota Camry (V6). Those probably got "Better than Avg" ratings, so its not concerning. The vehicles that appear above are likely only those which achieved either 'Much Better than Average' or 'Much Worse than Average'.

And as for the vaunted Passat:
"The all-wheel drive Volkswagen Passat received the lowest reliability rating of any vehicle in the survey."

~alpha

lmacmil · November 2004

If you drove both and the Accord felt faster, then it doesn't matter what the car mags say. As someone previously pointed out, the CR accel figures or the C&D "street start" relate more to real world driving than the car mag 0-60 runs, in which they rev the engine in drive while holding the brakes on. Good for squealing rubber and maybe knocking a few tenths off the time but not much else.

richards38 · November 2004

That you can't go back is what so many people say; however, I had a very fast 1966 Ford Fairlane that was the worst piece of **** one could imagine.

It followed a fantastic, even though somewhat sluggish 1963 Valiant that was much slower, but so much better. That's when I learned that adequate power in a great car is better than super power in a lousy car.

The Accord is, of course, a great car either way, and the 4 is amazingly smooth and quick. There has never been a situation when I haven't been able to go as fast as it was safe to go.

I probably do take fewer risks knowing that my 4 cylinder Accord is fast, but not BLAZINGLY fast....Richard

ktnr · November 2004

In the 4-cylinder vs. V-6 debate, everyone talks about power. To me, the bottom line is that the Accord 4-cylinder idles, accelerates, and labors exactly like what it is - a 4-cylinder engine. Granted, it's a very nice 4-cylinder engine and extremely smooth above 2,000rpm. However, despite it's adequate power, it's still an economy car engine whereas the V-6 is more of a luxury car engine.

Consumer Guide tested the new I-4 and V-6 Accords and came up with the same fuel mileage for both; 22.4mpg in mostly city driving and 26.1mpg mostly highway. Fuel savings isn't a big difference then.

Ultimately, it's personal decision each buyer has to make about whether the premium V-6 engine is worth an extra $3,300 (LX vs. LX-V6). Personally, I cheaped-out and bought the 4-cylinder. Would I rather have had the V-6? Heck yeah but the difference is about $2 a day every single day for five years so I skipped it.

jumpnjoe · November 2004

Dave,

I only test drove the Camry. I didn't disqualify it for size like the Mazda 6, just wasn't a big fan of the car. I have had the Accord for 9 months, regularly drive about an hour and have taken a couple of 4 hour trips and have always been extremely comfortable. At a little over 6'2 and 300 lbs, I may be close to the height limit, but I can still wear a hat when driving, w/out touching the top, so you should be fine. I haven't driven an Avalon either. You won't be unhappy if you get the Accord. I love mine. The "sports car feel" is exaggerated to me, but as others have said well, it is personal opinion and the test drive should be the deciding factor. Good luck.

Joe

petl · November 2004

Our 4cyl Camry offers more power than what most individuals will ever need. (Please note there is a difference between what people need and what they think need.) It doesn't comes close to "labouring" at any time. Not sure what you mean by idles, accelerates and or labours like an "economy" car engine. One reviewer actually thought it was a 6cyl when test driving it. This is not an "economy" engine (I'll assume the Accord's is just as good - maybe better). I travel frequently in hilly Vermont and the Adirondack and Lake Placid area. I have also travelled numerous times on interstate highways. Merging and passing has never been a problem. The vecicle has never made me feel unsafe and has never left me wanting or needing more.

I'm not into racing cars, so it doesn't matter if it takes 9.1 or 9.8 seconds to reach 60. Bragging rights seem to be the order of the day with this one. I believe that unless people need the extra towing capacity or plan on racing these cars, the 4cyl should satisfy most drivers. In my humble opinion, it's a phycological thing (my personnal view). Ahhh, the debate continues.

ktnr · November 2004

Regards the "economy car" 4-cylinder engine;

The $16,000 base-model Camry and Accord come with 4-cylinder engines. The high-end, $28,000 versions of these cars come with V-6's. To get more power than anyone needs and the ultimate in silky smoothness in all situations (like climbing a long grade with the A/C on), buyers have to pay a steep premium to get the premium V-6 engine.

I wish I could convince myself that I'm not missing out on anything by having chosen the 4-cylinder but it's not true. Camry or Accord, the 4-cylinder engines will never have the same hill-climbing torque and low-rpm smoothness of the V-6's. For those willing and able to pay the extra money, it's probably money well spent. My point is that for most people the issue is not so much the difference in horsepower between the two engines. Rather, some buyers decide to buy the extra off-idle smoothness and ability to hold a gear under load without downshifting that comes with the larger engine.

To me, it's not the same car with a choice of engines. Rather, there is the value-oriented, economy car with a 4-cylinder and there is the luxury-oriented car with a V-6.

Where it gets tricky is in between. Some buyers unable or unwilling to buy the fully-loaded V-6 opt for either a fully-loaded 4-cylinder or a nicely equipped V-6 that lacks some luxury features. Personally, there is no way I'd ever pay the extra money for options like a sunroof, alloy wheels and leather interior and yet still have the economy car 4-cylinder engine. Instead, I'd vastly prefer the premium powertrain first even if fewer onlookers noticed it.

Fortunately for Accord buyers, safety features are not part of the debate in 2005. Anti-lock brakes, front, side and curtain airbags are standard across the line. Thank you, Honda.

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles