We will have to agree to disagree, this is not an "economy" engine or car (Civics and Corolla's are). I don't need any convincing that I'm missing the V6. The smooth and quiet Camry 4 has more than enough torque and horsepower to meet my needs (including hill climbing with the AC on). I didn't say the 6 wasn't quicker. I said the Camry 4 has more than enough power than most will ever need, for any type of driving. I tend to agree with CR when they state that the Camry 4 is outstanding. Incidentally, 6 cyl LE Camry's are available for a couple grand more in Canada. For me it isn't a money issue.
I don't know why we got on the safety issue... However complements to Honda. Toyota is not the quickest to implement change. Hopefully they will respond in a positive manner and match Honda's lead (sooner rather later). I think you should enjoy your choice of vehicle and size of motor. It was a good selection.
Thinking about this overnight, I noted a significant flaw in the logic of condemning 4-cylinder engines as "economy car engines". By the definition I used, both the BMW 325 and Mercedes-Benz C230 would be classed "economy cars" compared to their more expensive 6-cylinder 330 and C240 siblings. That's silly, of course.
In your favor too, it's worth noting that the 4-cylinder Camry made CR's "10 Most Reliable" list while the V-6 Camry didn't. In the case of the Accord, the DOHC 4-cylinder has a very sophisticated i-VTEC design while the SOHC V-6 is necessarily limited to using the standard VTEC technology.
If that's true then it's a shame. The standard VTEC, while advanced in its day, is outdated and not too useful unless you're regularly revving your engine up to 6K or over (thought I've seen some mods where you can lower the VTEC point to ~4K). i-VTEC is much better and more in line with Toyota's continuously variable timing under VVTi. Why no i-VTEC in a V6 Accord?
And yes, to call the Camry 2.4 liter 2AZ-FE an economy engine is using a very strict definition of economy. It's still cranking out 160hp and has smooth operation at all engine speeds thanks to VVTi. Ever drive a Toyota Echo? Jeez, now that's economy.
I had to check that out myself on Toyota's web site just now. Not only is the Camry's V-6 VVT-i but it's DOHC as well. Cool.
So the Toyota 3.0 liter DOHC V-6 with continuously variable valve timing requires premium fuel but puts out 210bhp and 220ft-lbs of torque (with EPA estimates of 20/28mpg).
This is compared to Honda's 3.0 liter SOHC V-6 with non-continuously variable valve timing running on regular-grade fuel to produce 240bhp and 212ft-lbs of torque (EPA estimates of 21/30mpg).
Those are interesting specs put back-to-back - something I hadn't done before. Thanks for pointing out that difference.
The BMW 2.5 liter engine is a 6. The M-B 230 is a 4 but it hasn't come non-supercharged since the late 90s.
When you can extract 240hp out of a 3 liter engine, you don't need i-VTEC technology. I have driven both Accord and Camry V6s (and own a Highlander with the 3.3L V6), and the Accord seems every bit as smooth and powerful as the Toyota engines.
The Toyota 3.0L is admittedly an aging design. Also one thats on its way out. However, the engine does not require premium. It is recommended for best performance, just as in the Accord, and both vehicles EPA figures are on regular, in my understanding.
How does the Accord 3.0L V6 feature non-continuously variable valve timing? Is this not what VTEC is? The i-VTEC simply features VTEC on both cams, which cant happen on the Accord V6 since it uses a SOHC design. But they are both continuously variable in nature.
Also, the Camry V6 does not use what Toyota has dubbed "Dual VVTi", which is VVTi on both intake and exhaust cams. The first Toyota label vehicle with that technology, to my knowledge, will be the next generation Avalon. (I would say that "Dual VVTi" is Toyota's equivalent of iVTEC).
So just because a vehicle has DOHC and variable valve timing, does not necessarily mean that the variable valve timing applies to both cams. Such is the Camry V6.
Im not super technically knowledge, but I think I have a good base. If I am wrong in any of the above, feel free to correct me! ~alpha
VTEC is not continuously variable, it simply uses two different cam profiles that kick in at different RPM ranges, one high and one low. And the high one doesn't activate until you're pretty far up the power curve, somewhere the average driver doesn't tread very often. Supposedly it adds quite a boost though when it does come on. It also controls valve lift and operates on both the intake and exhaust cams, which VVTi doesn't do.
VVTi is continuously variable throughout the whole engine range, but it only controls the intake valves and doesn't affect valve lift, just timing.
Both companies have new systems, i-VTEC, which is continuously variable (I think), and VVTi-L, which adds valve lift control at high rpms and which cranks 180+hp in the Celica from a 1.8 liter I4.
Honda makes great engines, but for basic VTEC vs VVTi, with two cam profiles vs. infinite valve timing, there's no contest. Unless you're planning to race your Honda around over halfway to the redline you won't experience the VTEC benefits very often.
My son has that 180hp engine in his Matrix. The VVTi-L doesn't kick in until about 6000 rpm (redline is 8500 or so) but when it doesn't it feels like a turbo. Just about zero low end torque though.
Thanks for the clarification, I really appreciate it, that was a great summation.
One final question- does Toyota's VVTL-i on the Celica GTS/Matrix XRS/Corolla XRS operate on both the intake and exhaust cams?
Toyota's improved VVT-i (that does not feature the "Lift" technology) will debut on the 3.5L 280 hp Avalon V6 next spring. I double-checked... its called "Dual VVTi".
Too bad that on normally aspirated 4 cylinder Subarus like our EXCELLENT 05 Legacy 2.5i, theres no variable valve timing at all. The vehicle would definitely benefit from that system... in economy and power...
In all honesty, though, anyone considering the Camcords but looking for increased all-weather driveability... should DEFINITELY consider the outstanding Legacy. I prefer it to our 4 cylinder Camry or any 4 cylinder Accords I've driven... the main drawback is fuel economy that isnt stellar (we average 24-25 MPG), and the vehicle is not as roomy (though its trunk is as large as the Accord's). Fit and finish, interior quality/design, ride, handling, comfort... are all outstanding.
That article I linked to says that like VTEC, VVTL-i does work on both sets of valves, but I'm not sure. Search google for more info.
I guess that Dual VVTL-i (if that's what they call it) would be the ultimate for a Toyota, giving continuously variable timing for all valves plus lift control. In the meantime, Honda's close to introducing a 3-phase VTEC system that will add one more cam profile.
Someday none of this will matter though because they'll eventually develop a system where all the valves will be individually computer controlled and won't use cams or springs but electric solenoids to operate the valves with infinite variations. Right now they can't get the solenoids to react quickly enough, but someone will figure that out and one day all cars will work that way.
To me a very important aspect to vehicle safety is actually avoiding the wreck in the first place. With that said, the toyota camry wins for me because of the availability of traction control and VSC. You can get all of the side and curtain airbags also, but you will have to look around a bit. Toyota quality is much better than Honda period, don't even try to dispute that one. But my main point is in reference to the traction control and VSC.....think about it when you all make your decisions.
"Toyota quality is much better than Honda period, don't even try to dispute that one."
Can you substantiate that claim? I personally hold both cars in high regard, and the Accord gets my nod overall, though the vehicle I perfer most would be a loaded Camry SE V6 w/NAV & VSC.
I would recommend in the future using facts instead of opinions to construct an argument.
I guess if you go by Consumer Reports than the Camry gets a slight edge in reliability. Full red circle versus half. Then again these figures are based on CR subscriber's own personal experience so how accurate CR's prediction is, is somewhat questionable. But automakers do hold CR at very high esteem and tries their best to get a good rating.
The IIHS side impact test of the 04/05 cars showed the Camry and Accord, with side airbags, offer good protection for both front and rear occupants.
Without side airbags, both Camry and Accord are rated either poor or marginal for protection of both front and rear occupants.
Considering the very dangerous injuries that the heads are exposed to in a side collision, it makes very good sense to buy cars with all the side and curtain airbags. I should know. My wife hit her head on the side windows in a left side collision. The multiple injuries to her internal organs were nowhere as painful, complex and expensive as the injuries to her brain. We are looking at about $500K in medical bills and 6 months to a year recovery time. She is still lucky that she did not die, or fracture her spinal column, but the permanent injuries in her brain may never allow her to regain fully all her mental capabilities.
Honda has made side and curtain airbags standard features in 2005 Accord. Toyota has the GY option which costs about $500 for the extra side and curtain airbags. This option is, however, hard to find in the cheaper LE and SE trims.
Before buying your new car, think seriously about protecting your head in potential collisions. Buy as many side and curtain airbags as possible.
So your statement should be "based on my personal experience with Honda and Toyota, Toyota quality is better." It's quite a stretch to extrapolate your personal experience with a sample size of 1 or 2 or 3 into a general statement about a population of several million vehicles.
The IIHS rated both Camry and Accord as GOOD in front and side impact tests. The Camry appears to have ACCEPTABLE SAFETY CAGE compared to Accord's MARGINAL.
The IIHS's REAR PROTECTION TEST rated the ACCORD as POOR while the CAMRY as MARGINAL.
Overall, besides the Camry's theoretical availability of TC and VSC, the Camry appears to have slightly better safety ratings to the Accord.
With TC and VSC, the Camry should be better than the Accord in avoiding certain types of accidents, therefore should have lower probability of accidents and resultant injuries.
I am hoping that engineers and scientists in this forum may be able enlighten us in the specifics of the types of accidents that the TC and VSC can avoid.
I don't view TC as an accident avoidance system. Stability control, otoh, can clearly help a driver avoid an accident by correcting over- and understeer situations which might otherwise result in an accident. There's a very good site devoted to electronic stability control. The best accident avoidance technique is defensive and sensible driving. Even VSC can't overcome the laws of physics.
Industry experts agree: Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is an important safety feature to consider when buying a new vehicle. Experts praise ESC for its ability to prevent skids, spins and rollovers, significantly reducing the risk of a crash.
Here’s what they are saying about ESC:
“ES[C] makes an important contribution to accident prevention, and is therefore as significant for traffic safety as ABS, seat belt[s] and airbag[s].”
- Dr. Hans-Joachim Schöpf, head of passengercar development, Mercedes-Benz “As a government official, who worked closely with the Michigan State Police to reduce car accidents, I have seen many situations—from inclement weather to sudden obstacles—that have caused people to lose control of their vehicles. ESC allows drivers in these and other conditions to quickly regain control and safely navigate their vehicle.”
- Betty Mercer, Former Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, State of Michigan “It’s like having God as your co-pilot.”
- Don Sherman, Popular Mechanics “As a trauma surgeon, I witness firsthand the devastating effects of motor vehicle crashes where multiple injuries are sustained because drivers lose control of their cars. Because ESC helps drivers maintain control of their vehicle and prevent crashes, it can be quite beneficial in reducing the severity of injuries if not their actual number.”
- Ram Nirula, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Critical Care, Medical College of Wisconsin “These systems should be standard equipment in all SUVs. Their widespread use is virtually certain to result in fewer rollover-related deaths and injuries.”
- David Pittle, Sr. VP, Consumers Union “During my 20-year tenure with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we were able to help drivers adopt life saving mechanisms such as seatbelts and airbags. ESC, with its remarkable capability to help prevent car crashes, is yet another life saving technology that consumers must consider when buying a new vehicle.”
- Adele Derby, Former Associate Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “I've loved [electronic] stability control systems ever since experiencing firsthand how effective they are at keeping vehicles on course, whether on dry, wet or icy surfaces.
- Lawrence Ulrich, Money Magazine “I am very familiar with ESC technology through my professional work as an engineer and as a consultant helping companies reconstruct automobile accidents. I see the damage that accidents cause and know there is a technology out there to help drivers avoid them. Both of my cars have ESC because it is an essential safety feature that I would not drive without.”
- Dan Metz, Professor Emeritus, Department of General Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “What [electronic] stability control prevents is a skid or a slide, and that's what leads to rollovers in SUVs.”
- Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety “ESC provides drivers with confidence and a safety net to deftly handle sharp curves, rollovers and other adverse road conditions. Even the most performance-conscious drivers will happily realize that ESC doesn’t require a change in their technique, but simply keeps them safely on their intended path.”
- Jack Nerad, Co-host of “America on the Road” and Editor of Driving Today website “As a 17-year veteran of the driver education and traffic safety industry, I have had the opportunity witness the development of numerous safety technologies. ESC is a significant advancement in the fight to reduce auto collisions and fatalities, and will be something that I will promote to new drivers as an effective safety system that can one day save their lives.”
- Keith Russell, Executive Director of The Driving School Association of the Americas
Peterpan- keep checking inventory in your area if you are interested in a Camry with Side Curtains. It seems like more are being produced with this option in general. Although previously not common in my area (Greater NY Region) the Camry LE 4 5A is appearing on dealer lots with the curtains option. Up until the last time I looked at buyatoyota.com (about a month ago), the closest region to me with the Side Airbags/Curtains was the Central Atlantic.
Also- this is a good summary of the benefits of stability control.
I don't need to buy a new car immediately, as my wife won't be able to drive for at least another 6 months!!!!
I was looking into the 05 Accord. It has standard side/curtain airbags but not the VSC option. Besides, I went through the Accord forum and found a lot of complaints about the premature failure and leaking of the 5A transmission. A few of my friends did have to replace their Accords' AT at about 50K miles, while I have an old 89 Camry with 252K miles, still shifting smoothly on the original AT! The 05 Accord also has lower rear impact protection compared to the Camry, according to IIHS tests!
A Camry SE or XLE with 4 wheel ABS disc brakes and the GU options, with VSC, TC and side/curtain airbags, looks like the ideal car for my wife. So Cal dealers admitted that it would be very difficult finding a SE with the GU option. Most just dropped the ball. One thinks he can order the car for $20,750 plus tax and license, after rebate.
I will keep talking to the dealers and also try CARDIRECT.COM to see whether I can get that car with the right color and all.
"Besides, I went through the Accord forum and found a lot of complaints about the premature failure and leaking of the 5A transmission."
Lots of complaints? I spend lots of time on the Accord forum, and I recall seeing 1 gen 7 transmission replacement, for a 4-cyl which isn't even under the recall, and one complaint about a fluid leak.
The recall on the 5AT in Accord V6 models is to make a minor modification to prevent failure under certain very specific operating conditions on high mileage units. The procedure involves an inspection that may result in a transmission replacement, but that's a very unlikely scenario.
You obviously have decided on a Camry, which is a great choice and your choice to make. And I'm not posting this to try to change your mind. But your representation of the discussion about the Accord 5AT seems very different from what I've seen. There's no "rash" of premature transmission failures with the 5AT and no series of complaints about leaks that I can recall or find.
As for crash tests, according to the IIHS, the Camry's advantage over the Accord in rear impact protection is for cloth seats only... it ranks the same with leather seats. And there's a higher likelihood of injury to the driver's pelvis and legs in a side impact with a Camry than with an Accord when both have side curtains. As well as a higher likelihood of leg injury in a front impact with the Camry. So each car has its advantages over the other in this area as well. And the bottom line is, both cars are among the best cars currently available in crash tests.
You gotta take everything you read in these forums with a grain of salt. First, people who have problems are more likely to complain publically than people who don't. Second, there's way too much extrapolating from 1 or 2 data points to the general population, e.g., one reads about a couple people with brand X cars with transmission problems and assumes that all brand X cars are prone to transmission problems.
Still a good place to get some info but you gotta weed thru a lot of nonsense to find it.
IMO, the crash scores for the Camry with side curtains and the 2005 Accords are a wash. Like talon said, they're both at the top.
The bigger issue is finding a Camry with VSC. As shown in the IIHS link I provided, VSC is a big deal, and IMO, a major advantage for the safety minded.
The Accord in most trim levels, is a better choice (in terms of value), if you value precise handling over a smoother ride.
I think it's kind of pathetic that the top-ranked cars received only "Acceptable" and "Marginal" ratings for their safety cages, and that the good crash ratings only apply to models with side/side-curtain airbags (which are optional on the Camry).
Most cars have crappy head restraint ratings, too. Maybe not enough consumers care about this stuff to really put pressure on manufacturers.
I think more people in the U.S. are worried about a terrorist attack than they are about the safety of the cars they drive every day.
Personal experiences aside, Consumer Reports gives the 2004 V6 Accord and Camry, and the 4-cyl. Accord, perfect scores in all reliability categories except body integrity. Both get a "very good" (rather than an "excellent") in that category.
The 4-cylinder Camry gets perfect scores in all reliability areas.
Some people don't care for Consumer Reports, but I thought I'd toss in that info in case it helps you with your decision.
"Most cars have crappy head restraint ratings, too. Maybe not enough consumers care about this stuff to really put pressure on manufacturers."
Given that this is the first time the head restraints have been given this much scrutiny and subjected to a standard test, I suspect that these scores will improve rapidly over the next 2 or 3 years. Many companies want to tout their safety ratings, so they won't want these skeletons to remain in their closets.
This data by MSN may be old, but it ranked the Accord as having major problems with its transmission and driveline from 1998 to 2001, and moderate problems with its engine between 1998 through 2002! The Camry's record is flawless with only a significant problem with the air/fuel sensor in the 02 V6 engine.
On top of that, my personal experiences have shown Toyotas have better reliability and durability than Hondas.
I understand the MSN data is taken from repair shops, compared to CR which takes its data from consumer surveys. I tend to believe data from repair shops are probably more objective and reliable than from the consumers.
Honda may have solved their problem after 2002, may be, may be not. But I expect Toyota to continue to make improvements on its flawless reliability at the same time. So Toyota, to me, has better products.
In my personal experience (and those of my friends who own Toyotas or Hondas) as well, the Toyotas are more reliable and durable.
I've owned a 94 Camry, 03 Accord, and 04 Highlander. I have three friends that own Accords, one with a Civic, and three that have Corollas. My parents have owned both a Corolla and a Land Cruiser, and my in-laws have a Camry.
In my admittedly small sample size, the Toyota cars have had fewer problems over the long haul than the Honda vehicle.
On the other hand, the Honda owners have felt just as happy about their cars as the Toyota owners.
There is a valid counterpoint to the ratings publicity generated by these crash tests. I’ve read that automotive engineers sometimes complain that in order to do well in a severe test like a 40-mph fixed-barrier offset crash, they have to design vehicles to be very stiff. This is especially true of heavier SUV and truck designs that have to manage a LOT of energy in a fixed-barrier crash test.
Stiffer and stronger means that the design absorbs less energy in lesser, but more common, crashes. The argument is made that these “safer” autos actually help to create more injuries in the real world. How often does a SUV or pickup hit a fixed, immovable barrier like in these tests? Also, the stiffer SUV or truck may be more likely to injure or kill occupants of other vehicles in real-world, multi-vehicle crashes. Never the less, manufacturers now design for the publicity of the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests.
The response from auto safety experts is that the goal of tougher crash tests is to reduce fatalities first and injuries second. Improving a design’s crash performance can be a trade-off; you may be somewhat more likely to be injured in a moderate crash while being less likely to die in a severe one. Even something at simple as a driver’s front airbag can be a hugely risky trade-off if a driver is particularly short and slight.
Personally, I’ll take all the crash performance and airbags I can get while asking myself, “What kind of crash is my family likely to be in today?”
"This data by MSN may be old, but it ranked the Accord as having major problems with its transmission and driveline from 1998 to 2001, and moderate problems with its engine between 1998 through 2002! The Camry's record is flawless with only a significant problem with the air/fuel sensor in the 02 V6 engine."
This data does NOT reflect the 5 speed automatic in the current Accord, as you implied in your first post. That would be the 4 speed automatic on the previous generation Accord. And according to MSN, the transmission problem appears to have been resolved by 2002, the last model year for that generation, going from a significant problem in 2001 to a minimal problem in 2002.
And if you do prefer the MSN reliability records over Consumer Reports, and you rely on them, you'd better be sitting down when you read this.
I don't know where you got the "flawless" rating for the Camry, but this MSN link shows significant problems with engines in the Camry from 1997 to 2001. That's a long way from flawless.
And my personal experience has been the opposite of yours (Honda vs. Toyota, that is). One of my Toyotas left me stranded because they did a "silent recall" and the part silently failed on me while driving on vacation. My cousin had a Corolla whose AT self destructed at 14000 miles. Never had any issues even remotely as serious with either of my Hondas, nor have any of my friends and relatives that own them.
I'm not trying to say that Toyotas aren't reliable, either. But if you rely on anecdotal reports to say Toyota is better than Honda, or vice versa, owners can trade horror stories about both brands for hours.
Once again, the bottom line is that, for all practical purposes, the Camry and Accord are as equal and highly rated in reliability as just about anything on the market.
We own a '96 Camry V6, '97 Honda CR-V, and '04 Accord V6. In my personal experience, the Camry is the worst built car. I'm not saying that the Camry is a bad car. It's just that the build quality is not on par with the CRV. It's not fair to compare a '96 Camry with a '04 Accord though. It's my first Accord so that only time will tell me how good the Accord is as it ages. Right now I really enjoy the v6 power, road feel and handling of the car.
Yeah, I guess personal experiences are all over the place. Though they're probably one of the most important factors when someone is in the market for a new car.
Could you check if your '94 Camry was made in Japan? Mine was made in Kentucky. I don't want to start this again, but i strongly believe that Japanese made Camry's are better built.
I know that all Highlander's are made in Japan. Maybe that's why you feel good built quality.
I don't have the Camry anymore, so I'd had to root around for something that has the VIN # on it to tell where it was made.
Probably the fact that the Accord was a first-year redesign accounts for the problems I had.
Of the cars I've had, I think the 94 Camry LE had the best materials and build quality for its price. The 04 HL has very nice materials, but it's a Limited model, so you pay a lot for those materials. The Accord also has nice materials for the price, but the plastics and some other items in the interior didn't seem up to the standards of the old Camry.
Then again, new Camry's don't seem as high-quality as the Camry's from the early 90's, in my opinion.
First, ktnr- It seems that you are really a bit confused.
Automotive engineers design the front and rear portions of the vehicles to "give" during accidents. This is why they are called "crumple zones". The area directly around the occupant compartment is designed to be more stiff. The 40MPH barrier test performed by the IIHS does not actually use a fixed barrier. Its a honeycomb deformable barrier that also absorbs some of the crash energy.
You claim "Stiffer and stronger means that the design absorbs less energy in lesser, but more common, crashes.". Thats not true, due to the crumple zones that I just spoke of. Again, crumple zones are NOT stiffer, they are strategically deformable.
You also state: "The response from auto safety experts is that the goal of tougher crash tests is to reduce fatalities first and injuries second. Improving a design’s crash performance can be a trade-off; you may be somewhat more likely to be injured in a moderate crash while being less likely to die in a severe one. Even something at simple as a driver’s front airbag can be a hugely risky trade-off if a driver is particularly short and slight."
Reducing fatalities does not come at the expense of increased injuries in moderate crashes. I have seen no evidence regarding this. However, the reduction of fatalities would logically mean the possibility of injuries in more serious crashes, as the same serious crashes injuring people today would have killed them previously, for example. The issue regarding airbags has largely been mitigated since 1998 when lower powered airbags were approved, and with the advanced of smarter, multi-stage airbags that weigh seatbelt usage, occupant weight, and seat position.
So in essence, I disagree with just about everything you say, because it goes against everything Ive read and observed. Some of it even goes against logic, IMO. THE ONE thing that I will say is that, because of the introduction of crumple zones, vehicles themselves sustain MORE damage (again because they are 'softer' so to speak, front and rear), fender benders have become more costly.
Second- with respect to Honda vs. Toyota reliability: Anecdotal evidence means NOTHING. I had an unreliable Civic, but that doesnt change the fact that JD Power and Consumer Reports both show the Civic to be among the most reliable models. Both Honda and Toyota are at the top of heap, on aggregate, and to decide on one over the other seems a moot point. Again, I completely concur with talon95's commentary. He (she?) is one of the most fact based debate ready members Ive had the pleasure of reading.
I would advise choosing on preference for the way the two vehicles drive. If I could spend 28 grand, I'd prefer the Camry SE V6. But if I could spend 20, I'd probably go for the Accord LX.
Using your logic, a vehicle optimized to absorb the energy of a 40-mph fixed barrier crash is still safer for all parties at 20-mph than a vehicle optimized for a 20-mph crash. How can that be?
Unfortunately, a vehicle can only be optimized for a narrow range of conditions. I'll agree that a vehicle designed to meet more rigorous crash standards is probably safer at all speeds for the occupants of THAT vehicle alone IF they correctly wear their seatbelts and are not out-of-position for the airbags.
For example; look at the crash photos of Ford's current and last generation F-150. If I had to choose which one I'd want to broadside my compact car, I'd definitely choose the older F-150 (rated "poor"). It's easy to conceive of a moderate crash which results in no injury to the driver of either F-150, new or old. Yet the occupants of a compact car hit broadside would be better off with the old "poor" F-150 instead of being hit by the new F-150 rated as "good". Net result of this accident scenario - the "safer" design results in more injuries to the accident population.
I'm not suggesting that anyone not buy the safest, most rigorously tested vehicle they can. What I said is that there are safety trade-offs made that effect the accident population as a whole. Safety isn't as cut-and-dried as it might appear at first glance.
If you drive a compact car, "safer" SUV's and pickups might be a concern for you if you're ever in an accident with one. Not a fact, just my impression. Sorry for the confusion.
Thank you for your clarifications, however, you precisely make my point- your impression is not the fact.
There is no way for you to say that the former F150 would inflict less harm to you or your vehicle by just looking at the IIHS crash photos. And Im still not sure I understand your logic- the new F150 manages crash energy better in its front end, and because of this, its occupant safety cage does not collapse. In my opinion, this indicates that Ford redesigned, and "softened" the front impact structure of the new model. They did not make it stiffer. However, its evident that they did stiffen the safety cage of the new model.
I agree that safety isnt as cut and dried as it appears at first glance, but I feel you may be misreading the data. Motor vehicle deaths and injury claims have been holding fairly constant in recent years (with deaths in the 43,000 range per annum), despite that more people are driving more miles. Insurance claims are on the rise for the reason I already mentioned, but, nonetheless, advances such as airbags, crumple zones, and safety cages are making occupants safer.
"If I had bad experiences with a MFR, the only way I will give their products another chance would be when they give them to me for FREE!"
Well then, I guess I'll be waiting for my free Toyota!
Hey, alpha1, thanks for the kind words about my posts. That's high praise coming from someone like you whose posts are typically high on the useful information scale and low on the bias scale.
Curious to see how a 2005 Camry LE compared in price to my 2005 Accord LX, I got some prices today. With the “GYAT” side & side-curtain airbag option on the Camry, the lowest price I could find was comparable to the deal I recently obtained on an Accord. While I paid slightly under invoice for the Accord, the best Camry price I got today was only a little over invoice. Given that Toyota gives less dealer holdback (2% of base MSRP versus Honda’s 3% on total MSRP), the dealer profit was about the same by my calculations at around $500.
The Camry has a theoretical safety advantage over the Accord in that stability control is available on all trim levels. However, one dealer did a search and found only 5 Camry LE’s here in the southeastern United States equipped with the VSC option (package “GUAT”). The dealer also wanted to charge $700 extra for that option package (full MSRP should be only $650 more than the side-curtain airbags alone in the “GYAT” package).
Pushed to compete with Honda’s current 1.9% APR financing for 60 months, Toyota dealers offered either a $1,000 rebate –OR- 0.0% APR for 36 months, 1.9% APR for 48 months, or 2.9% APR for 60 months. (The lower APR would be a better deal for most people.) Of course, unless your credit is stellar, the finance person could claim that you don’t qualify and try to stick you with a higher rate unless you’re prepared in advance.
Several dealers noted that Toyota’s powertrain warranty is 5/60 instead of Honda’s mere 3/36.
Overall, the competition is closer than I expected.
" I don't know where you got the "flawless" rating for the Camry, but this MSN link shows significant problems with engines in the Camry from 1997 to 2001. That's a long way from flawless. "
You should read the report in that link again. The only problem mentioned with the Camry's engine between 97 and 01 was the air/fuel sensor in the V6 engine. No other problems were mentioned!
To me that means the I4 engine has a flawless record! The V6 engine would probably also be flawless after the air/fuel sensor is replaced!
Comments
I don't know why we got on the safety issue... However complements to Honda. Toyota is not the quickest to implement change. Hopefully they will respond in a positive manner and match Honda's lead (sooner rather later). I think you should enjoy your choice of vehicle and size of motor. It was a good selection.
In your favor too, it's worth noting that the 4-cylinder Camry made CR's "10 Most Reliable" list while the V-6 Camry didn't. In the case of the Accord, the DOHC 4-cylinder has a very sophisticated i-VTEC design while the SOHC V-6 is necessarily limited to using the standard VTEC technology.
And yes, to call the Camry 2.4 liter 2AZ-FE an economy engine is using a very strict definition of economy. It's still cranking out 160hp and has smooth operation at all engine speeds thanks to VVTi. Ever drive a Toyota Echo? Jeez, now that's economy.
So the Toyota 3.0 liter DOHC V-6 with continuously variable valve timing requires premium fuel but puts out 210bhp and 220ft-lbs of torque (with EPA estimates of 20/28mpg).
This is compared to Honda's 3.0 liter SOHC V-6 with non-continuously variable valve timing running on regular-grade fuel to produce 240bhp and 212ft-lbs of torque (EPA estimates of 21/30mpg).
Those are interesting specs put back-to-back - something I hadn't done before. Thanks for pointing out that difference.
When you can extract 240hp out of a 3 liter engine, you don't need i-VTEC technology. I have driven both Accord and Camry V6s (and own a Highlander with the 3.3L V6), and the Accord seems every bit as smooth and powerful as the Toyota engines.
How does the Accord 3.0L V6 feature non-continuously variable valve timing? Is this not what VTEC is? The i-VTEC simply features VTEC on both cams, which cant happen on the Accord V6 since it uses a SOHC design. But they are both continuously variable in nature.
Also, the Camry V6 does not use what Toyota has dubbed "Dual VVTi", which is VVTi on both intake and exhaust cams. The first Toyota label vehicle with that technology, to my knowledge, will be the next generation Avalon. (I would say that "Dual VVTi" is Toyota's equivalent of iVTEC).
So just because a vehicle has DOHC and variable valve timing, does not necessarily mean that the variable valve timing applies to both cams. Such is the Camry V6.
Im not super technically knowledge, but I think I have a good base. If I am wrong in any of the above, feel free to correct me!
~alpha
VVTi is continuously variable throughout the whole engine range, but it only controls the intake valves and doesn't affect valve lift, just timing.
Both companies have new systems, i-VTEC, which is continuously variable (I think), and VVTi-L, which adds valve lift control at high rpms and which cranks 180+hp in the Celica from a 1.8 liter I4.
Honda makes great engines, but for basic VTEC vs VVTi, with two cam profiles vs. infinite valve timing, there's no contest. Unless you're planning to race your Honda around over halfway to the redline you won't experience the VTEC benefits very often.
Here's a good article on i-VTEC:
http://asia.vtec.net/article/k20a/
http://www.everythingcelica.com/ubbthreads/thread.f_158777_0_coll- apsed_5__1.html
One final question- does Toyota's VVTL-i on the Celica GTS/Matrix XRS/Corolla XRS operate on both the intake and exhaust cams?
Toyota's improved VVT-i (that does not feature the "Lift" technology) will debut on the 3.5L 280 hp Avalon V6 next spring. I double-checked... its called "Dual VVTi".
~alpha
In all honesty, though, anyone considering the Camcords but looking for increased all-weather driveability... should DEFINITELY consider the outstanding Legacy. I prefer it to our 4 cylinder Camry or any 4 cylinder Accords I've driven... the main drawback is fuel economy that isnt stellar (we average 24-25 MPG), and the vehicle is not as roomy (though its trunk is as large as the Accord's). Fit and finish, interior quality/design, ride, handling, comfort... are all outstanding.
~alpha
I guess that Dual VVTL-i (if that's what they call it) would be the ultimate for a Toyota, giving continuously variable timing for all valves plus lift control. In the meantime, Honda's close to introducing a 3-phase VTEC system that will add one more cam profile.
Someday none of this will matter though because they'll eventually develop a system where all the valves will be individually computer controlled and won't use cams or springs but electric solenoids to operate the valves with infinite variations. Right now they can't get the solenoids to react quickly enough, but someone will figure that out and one day all cars will work that way.
Can you substantiate that claim? I personally hold both cars in high regard, and the Accord gets my nod overall, though the vehicle I perfer most would be a loaded Camry SE V6 w/NAV & VSC.
I would recommend in the future using facts instead of opinions to construct an argument.
~alpha
http://www.billzilla.org/vvtvtec.htm
There are some interesting insights here into how Toyota's variable valve timing compares to Honda's.
The IIHS side impact test of the 04/05 cars showed the Camry and Accord, with side airbags, offer good protection for both front and rear occupants.
Without side airbags, both Camry and Accord are rated either poor or marginal for protection of both front and rear occupants.
Considering the very dangerous injuries that the heads are exposed to in a side collision, it makes very good sense to buy cars with all the side and curtain airbags. I should know. My wife hit her head on the side windows in a left side collision. The multiple injuries to her internal organs were nowhere as painful, complex and expensive as the injuries to her brain. We are looking at about $500K in medical bills and 6 months to a year recovery time. She is still lucky that she did not die, or fracture her spinal column, but the permanent injuries in her brain may never allow her to regain fully all her mental capabilities.
Honda has made side and curtain airbags standard features in 2005 Accord. Toyota has the GY option which costs about $500 for the extra side and curtain airbags. This option is, however, hard to find in the cheaper LE and SE trims.
Before buying your new car, think seriously about protecting your head in potential collisions. Buy as many side and curtain airbags as possible.
The IIHS rated both Camry and Accord as GOOD in front and side impact tests. The Camry appears to have ACCEPTABLE SAFETY CAGE compared to Accord's MARGINAL.
The IIHS's REAR PROTECTION TEST rated the ACCORD as POOR while the CAMRY as MARGINAL.
Overall, besides the Camry's theoretical availability of TC and VSC, the Camry appears to have slightly better safety ratings to the Accord.
With TC and VSC, the Camry should be better than the Accord in avoiding certain types of accidents, therefore should have lower probability of accidents and resultant injuries.
I am hoping that engineers and scientists in this forum may be able enlighten us in the specifics of the types of accidents that the TC and VSC can avoid.
http://www.esccoalition.com/
Industry experts agree: Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is an important safety feature to consider when buying a new vehicle. Experts praise ESC for its ability to prevent skids, spins and rollovers, significantly reducing the risk of a crash.
Here’s what they are saying about ESC:
“ES[C] makes an important contribution to accident prevention, and is therefore as significant for traffic safety as ABS, seat belt[s] and airbag[s].”
- Dr. Hans-Joachim Schöpf, head of passengercar development, Mercedes-Benz
“As a government official, who worked closely with the Michigan State Police to reduce car accidents, I have seen many situations—from inclement weather to sudden obstacles—that have caused people to lose control of their vehicles. ESC allows drivers in these and other conditions to quickly regain control and safely navigate their vehicle.”
- Betty Mercer, Former Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, State of Michigan
“It’s like having God as your co-pilot.”
- Don Sherman, Popular Mechanics
“As a trauma surgeon, I witness firsthand the devastating effects of motor vehicle crashes where multiple injuries are sustained because drivers lose control of their cars. Because ESC helps drivers maintain control of their vehicle and prevent crashes, it can be quite beneficial in reducing the severity of injuries if not their actual number.”
- Ram Nirula, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Critical Care, Medical College of Wisconsin
“These systems should be standard equipment in all SUVs. Their widespread use is virtually certain to result in fewer rollover-related deaths and injuries.”
- David Pittle, Sr. VP, Consumers Union
“During my 20-year tenure with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we were able to help drivers adopt life saving mechanisms such as seatbelts and airbags. ESC, with its remarkable capability to help prevent car crashes, is yet another life saving technology that consumers must consider when buying a new vehicle.”
- Adele Derby, Former Associate Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
“I've loved [electronic] stability control systems ever since experiencing firsthand how effective they are at keeping vehicles on course, whether on dry, wet or icy surfaces.
- Lawrence Ulrich, Money Magazine
“I am very familiar with ESC technology through my professional work as an engineer and as a consultant helping companies reconstruct automobile accidents. I see the damage that accidents cause and know there is a technology out there to help drivers avoid them. Both of my cars have ESC because it is an essential safety feature that I would not drive without.”
- Dan Metz, Professor Emeritus, Department of General Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
“What [electronic] stability control prevents is a skid or a slide, and that's what leads to rollovers in SUVs.”
- Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
“ESC provides drivers with confidence and a safety net to deftly handle sharp curves, rollovers and other adverse road conditions. Even the most performance-conscious drivers will happily realize that ESC doesn’t require a change in their technique, but simply keeps them safely on their intended path.”
- Jack Nerad, Co-host of “America on the Road” and Editor of Driving Today website
“As a 17-year veteran of the driver education and traffic safety industry, I have had the opportunity witness the development of numerous safety technologies. ESC is a significant advancement in the fight to reduce auto collisions and fatalities, and will be something that I will promote to new drivers as an effective safety system that can one day save their lives.”
- Keith Russell, Executive Director of The Driving School Association of the Americas
Also- this is a good summary of the benefits of stability control.
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr102804.htm
~alpha
I don't need to buy a new car immediately, as my wife won't be able to drive for at least another 6 months!!!!
I was looking into the 05 Accord. It has standard side/curtain airbags but not the VSC option. Besides, I went through the Accord forum and found a lot of complaints about the premature failure and leaking of the 5A transmission. A few of my friends did have to replace their Accords' AT at about 50K miles, while I have an old 89 Camry with 252K miles, still shifting smoothly on the original AT! The 05 Accord also has lower rear impact protection compared to the Camry, according to IIHS tests!
A Camry SE or XLE with 4 wheel ABS disc brakes and the GU options, with VSC, TC and side/curtain airbags, looks like the ideal car for my wife. So Cal dealers admitted that it would be very difficult finding a SE with the GU option. Most just dropped the ball. One thinks he can order the car for $20,750 plus tax and license, after rebate.
I will keep talking to the dealers and also try CARDIRECT.COM to see whether I can get that car with the right color and all.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Lots of complaints? I spend lots of time on the Accord forum, and I recall seeing 1 gen 7 transmission replacement, for a 4-cyl which isn't even under the recall, and one complaint about a fluid leak.
The recall on the 5AT in Accord V6 models is to make a minor modification to prevent failure under certain very specific operating conditions on high mileage units. The procedure involves an inspection that may result in a transmission replacement, but that's a very unlikely scenario.
You obviously have decided on a Camry, which is a great choice and your choice to make. And I'm not posting this to try to change your mind. But your representation of the discussion about the Accord 5AT seems very different from what I've seen. There's no "rash" of premature transmission failures with the 5AT and no series of complaints about leaks that I can recall or find.
As for crash tests, according to the IIHS, the Camry's advantage over the Accord in rear impact protection is for cloth seats only... it ranks the same with leather seats. And there's a higher likelihood of injury to the driver's pelvis and legs in a side impact with a Camry than with an Accord when both have side curtains. As well as a higher likelihood of leg injury in a front impact with the Camry. So each car has its advantages over the other in this area as well. And the bottom line is, both cars are among the best cars currently available in crash tests.
Still a good place to get some info but you gotta weed thru a lot of nonsense to find it.
The bigger issue is finding a Camry with VSC. As shown in the IIHS link I provided, VSC is a big deal, and IMO, a major advantage for the safety minded.
The Accord in most trim levels, is a better choice (in terms of value), if you value precise handling over a smoother ride.
~alpha
Most cars have crappy head restraint ratings, too. Maybe not enough consumers care about this stuff to really put pressure on manufacturers.
I think more people in the U.S. are worried about a terrorist attack than they are about the safety of the cars they drive every day.
Ok, rant over....
The 4-cylinder Camry gets perfect scores in all reliability areas.
Some people don't care for Consumer Reports, but I thought I'd toss in that info in case it helps you with your decision.
Given that this is the first time the head restraints have been given this much scrutiny and subjected to a standard test, I suspect that these scores will improve rapidly over the next 2 or 3 years. Many companies want to tout their safety ratings, so they won't want these skeletons to remain in their closets.
With regard to the IIHS side impact test, I was surprised that the Accord only achieved a Marginal rating for structure.
~alpha
This data by MSN may be old, but it ranked the Accord as having major problems with its transmission and driveline from 1998 to 2001, and moderate problems with its engine between 1998 through 2002! The Camry's record is flawless with only a significant problem with the air/fuel sensor in the 02 V6 engine.
On top of that, my personal experiences have shown Toyotas have better reliability and durability than Hondas.
I understand the MSN data is taken from repair shops, compared to CR which takes its data from consumer surveys. I tend to believe data from repair shops are probably more objective and reliable than from the consumers.
Honda may have solved their problem after 2002, may be, may be not. But I expect Toyota to continue to make improvements on its flawless reliability at the same time. So Toyota, to me, has better products.
I've owned a 94 Camry, 03 Accord, and 04 Highlander. I have three friends that own Accords, one with a Civic, and three that have Corollas. My parents have owned both a Corolla and a Land Cruiser, and my in-laws have a Camry.
In my admittedly small sample size, the Toyota cars have had fewer problems over the long haul than the Honda vehicle.
On the other hand, the Honda owners have felt just as happy about their cars as the Toyota owners.
Stiffer and stronger means that the design absorbs less energy in lesser, but more common, crashes. The argument is made that these “safer” autos actually help to create more injuries in the real world. How often does a SUV or pickup hit a fixed, immovable barrier like in these tests? Also, the stiffer SUV or truck may be more likely to injure or kill occupants of other vehicles in real-world, multi-vehicle crashes. Never the less, manufacturers now design for the publicity of the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests.
The response from auto safety experts is that the goal of tougher crash tests is to reduce fatalities first and injuries second. Improving a design’s crash performance can be a trade-off; you may be somewhat more likely to be injured in a moderate crash while being less likely to die in a severe one. Even something at simple as a driver’s front airbag can be a hugely risky trade-off if a driver is particularly short and slight.
Personally, I’ll take all the crash performance and airbags I can get while asking myself, “What kind of crash is my family likely to be in today?”
This data does NOT reflect the 5 speed automatic in the current Accord, as you implied in your first post. That would be the 4 speed automatic on the previous generation Accord. And according to MSN, the transmission problem appears to have been resolved by 2002, the last model year for that generation, going from a significant problem in 2001 to a minimal problem in 2002.
And if you do prefer the MSN reliability records over Consumer Reports, and you rely on them, you'd better be sitting down when you read this.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/reviews.aspx?modelid=9813&t- - - - - rimid=-1&src=ratings&tab=4#rel
I don't know where you got the "flawless" rating for the Camry, but this MSN link shows significant problems with engines in the Camry from 1997 to 2001. That's a long way from flawless.
And my personal experience has been the opposite of yours (Honda vs. Toyota, that is). One of my Toyotas left me stranded because they did a "silent recall" and the part silently failed on me while driving on vacation. My cousin had a Corolla whose AT self destructed at 14000 miles. Never had any issues even remotely as serious with either of my Hondas, nor have any of my friends and relatives that own them.
I'm not trying to say that Toyotas aren't reliable, either. But if you rely on anecdotal reports to say Toyota is better than Honda, or vice versa, owners can trade horror stories about both brands for hours.
Once again, the bottom line is that, for all practical purposes, the Camry and Accord are as equal and highly rated in reliability as just about anything on the market.
I know that all Highlander's are made in Japan. Maybe that's why you feel good built quality.
And your '03 Accord maybe made in Ohio...
Probably the fact that the Accord was a first-year redesign accounts for the problems I had.
Of the cars I've had, I think the 94 Camry LE had the best materials and build quality for its price. The 04 HL has very nice materials, but it's a Limited model, so you pay a lot for those materials. The Accord also has nice materials for the price, but the plastics and some other items in the interior didn't seem up to the standards of the old Camry.
Then again, new Camry's don't seem as high-quality as the Camry's from the early 90's, in my opinion.
Automotive engineers design the front and rear portions of the vehicles to "give" during accidents. This is why they are called "crumple zones". The area directly around the occupant compartment is designed to be more stiff. The 40MPH barrier test performed by the IIHS does not actually use a fixed barrier. Its a honeycomb deformable barrier that also absorbs some of the crash energy.
You claim "Stiffer and stronger means that the design absorbs less energy in lesser, but more common, crashes.". Thats not true, due to the crumple zones that I just spoke of. Again, crumple zones are NOT stiffer, they are strategically deformable.
You also state: "The response from auto safety experts is that the goal of tougher crash tests is to reduce fatalities first and injuries second. Improving a design’s crash performance can be a trade-off; you may be somewhat more likely to be injured in a moderate crash while being less likely to die in a severe one. Even something at simple as a driver’s front airbag can be a hugely risky trade-off if a driver is particularly short and slight."
Reducing fatalities does not come at the expense of increased injuries in moderate crashes. I have seen no evidence regarding this. However, the reduction of fatalities would logically mean the possibility of injuries in more serious crashes, as the same serious crashes injuring people today would have killed them previously, for example.
The issue regarding airbags has largely been mitigated since 1998 when lower powered airbags were approved, and with the advanced of smarter, multi-stage airbags that weigh seatbelt usage, occupant weight, and seat position.
So in essence, I disagree with just about everything you say, because it goes against everything Ive read and observed. Some of it even goes against logic, IMO. THE ONE thing that I will say is that, because of the introduction of crumple zones, vehicles themselves sustain MORE damage (again because they are 'softer' so to speak, front and rear), fender benders have become more costly.
Second- with respect to Honda vs. Toyota reliability: Anecdotal evidence means NOTHING. I had an unreliable Civic, but that doesnt change the fact that JD Power and Consumer Reports both show the Civic to be among the most reliable models. Both Honda and Toyota are at the top of heap, on aggregate, and to decide on one over the other seems a moot point. Again, I completely concur with talon95's commentary. He (she?) is one of the most fact based debate ready members Ive had the pleasure of reading.
I would advise choosing on preference for the way the two vehicles drive. If I could spend 28 grand, I'd prefer the Camry SE V6. But if I could spend 20, I'd probably go for the Accord LX.
my .02
~alpha
Using your logic, a vehicle optimized to absorb the energy of a 40-mph fixed barrier crash is still safer for all parties at 20-mph than a vehicle optimized for a 20-mph crash. How can that be?
Unfortunately, a vehicle can only be optimized for a narrow range of conditions. I'll agree that a vehicle designed to meet more rigorous crash standards is probably safer at all speeds for the occupants of THAT vehicle alone IF they correctly wear their seatbelts and are not out-of-position for the airbags.
For example; look at the crash photos of Ford's current and last generation F-150. If I had to choose which one I'd want to broadside my compact car, I'd definitely choose the older F-150 (rated "poor"). It's easy to conceive of a moderate crash which results in no injury to the driver of either F-150, new or old. Yet the occupants of a compact car hit broadside would be better off with the old "poor" F-150 instead of being hit by the new F-150 rated as "good". Net result of this accident scenario - the "safer" design results in more injuries to the accident population.
I'm not suggesting that anyone not buy the safest, most rigorously tested vehicle they can. What I said is that there are safety trade-offs made that effect the accident population as a whole. Safety isn't as cut-and-dried as it might appear at first glance.
If you drive a compact car, "safer" SUV's and pickups might be a concern for you if you're ever in an accident with one. Not a fact, just my impression. Sorry for the confusion.
There is no way for you to say that the former F150 would inflict less harm to you or your vehicle by just looking at the IIHS crash photos.
And Im still not sure I understand your logic- the new F150 manages crash energy better in its front end, and because of this, its occupant safety cage does not collapse. In my opinion, this indicates that Ford redesigned, and "softened" the front impact structure of the new model. They did not make it stiffer. However, its evident that they did stiffen the safety cage of the new model.
I agree that safety isnt as cut and dried as it appears at first glance, but I feel you may be misreading the data. Motor vehicle deaths and injury claims have been holding fairly constant in recent years (with deaths in the 43,000 range per annum), despite that more people are driving more miles. Insurance claims are on the rise for the reason I already mentioned, but, nonetheless, advances such as airbags, crumple zones, and safety cages are making occupants safer.
~alpha
That's the weight of my anecdotal evidence!
Well then, I guess I'll be waiting for my free Toyota!
Hey, alpha1, thanks for the kind words about my posts. That's high praise coming from someone like you whose posts are typically high on the useful information scale and low on the bias scale.
BTW, the correct pronoun is "he"...
The Camry has a theoretical safety advantage over the Accord in that stability control is available on all trim levels. However, one dealer did a search and found only 5 Camry LE’s here in the southeastern United States equipped with the VSC option (package “GUAT”). The dealer also wanted to charge $700 extra for that option package (full MSRP should be only $650 more than the side-curtain airbags alone in the “GYAT” package).
Pushed to compete with Honda’s current 1.9% APR financing for 60 months, Toyota dealers offered either a $1,000 rebate –OR- 0.0% APR for 36 months, 1.9% APR for 48 months, or 2.9% APR for 60 months. (The lower APR would be a better deal for most people.) Of course, unless your credit is stellar, the finance person could claim that you don’t qualify and try to stick you with a higher rate unless you’re prepared in advance.
Several dealers noted that Toyota’s powertrain warranty is 5/60 instead of Honda’s mere 3/36.
Overall, the competition is closer than I expected.
You should read the report in that link again. The only problem mentioned with the Camry's engine between 97 and 01 was the air/fuel sensor in the V6 engine. No other problems were mentioned!
To me that means the I4 engine has a flawless record! The V6 engine would probably also be flawless after the air/fuel sensor is replaced!