Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
By making tight turn at about 20 MPH, the IS300 was sliding/skidding all over while the GS300's VSC would cut in and keep the car under control.
I lost control of cars a few times over the years. One time was in a Ford Maverick on straight down hill highway after a snow storm in PA. I was going at about 50MPH, the car lost control, spinning around a few times, then slammed into a snowy ditch.
Another time was in a Nissan 280Z while entering a tight single-lane onramp into a wet highway in Springfield, MA at about 40MPH. The car lost traction and spinned a full 360 deg in a tight circle. The ramp was narrow but luckily I did not hit anything. The 280Z had a nearly perfect weight distribution of 51 front and 49 rear, which make it far less likely to spin than head-heavy cars. Why it would spin in that fairly gentle turn surprised me.
I was driving in a slushy winter morning in Rochester NY when a brand-new Peugeot passed me on the left at about 60 MPH, entering a bridge on a slight curve. The bridge must have been frozen as the Peugeot lost traction, spinned around a full 360 deg and slammed hard into the concrete guard rail, causing extensive body damage. I had no problem stopping the 280Z behind the Peugeot on that bridge to watch the whole spectacle. The 280Z had Toyo all season radials on at the time.
In Rochester NY, whenever it snowed, there would be a lot of US cars slipping, sliding around, unable to maintain control and climb the rolling hills around Irondequoit bay. I never had any problems driving straight through in normal cruise speed in the Nissan 280Z with all season radial tires.
On busy but dry and clean freeway 5 in So Cal, I was going about 70 MPH in the express lane, a guy passed me at high speed on the right in a full-sized GM sedan. A few second down further, I found him going straight BACKWARD at about 60MPH on the right shoulder. His auto transmission must have been shot by then. There were a dozen cars on the road at the time but apparently he did not hit anyone! I did not see how he lost control of the car. Must have been a quick lane jump for passing that lost control. It's scary how quick and easy it is to lose control of the car.
In all 5 incidents above, VSC and traction control would have definitely helped preventing loss of control. It would be very smart to buy cars with VSC and traction control in the snow belt!
That reply in and of itself is an uninformed reply and shows your lack of knowledge and experience on the subject. IN addition, you don't take into account the one incident in your life where it can make a difference.
One more thing, your reply reminds of those who proclaim AWD is worthless because it doesn't help stop you any faster and in fact lengthens the stopping distance due to increased weight.
I had such an incident last year as I did an emergency avoidance maneuver at the speed limit, 45, as a deer jumped out in front of my car. I was able to avoid it by stomp, steer and veer. It was only a split second in total, but I saw the DSC light came on, showing me the system was working. If you think a similiar manuever is a piece of cake try doing something like that in your own car going 45.
How is that "uninformed"? Because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint? I'm more than adequately informed to discuss this topic, regardless of what you seem to think. Please get back to the discussion and spare us the judgments on the opinions of others.
Please show me where I said that AWD is worthless. For that matter, please show me where I said that ESC is worthless. I made neither statement. All I said is that I will choose the better handling car overall before I'd choose a car with lesser handling dynamics with ESC. The car with better handling dynamics AND ESC would be the best of both worlds.
"If you think a similiar manuever is a piece of cake try doing something like that in your own car going 45."
I've faced similar situations before (as have thousands of drivers), and I've been able to leverage the handling dynamics of my car along with my driving skills to get through the situation unscathed. People have been doing this for years without requiring the help of an electronic nanny.
If all drivers were skilled and responsible, we wouldn't need any safety systems at all, would we:-)?
In the situations where ESC is needed, the superior handling of the Accord over the Camry probably isn't going to make much difference. The car mags complain about ESC because they are trying to evaluate the limits of a vehicle's capabilities. For 95% of the driving situations that 95% of the public encounters, ESC isn't going to be intrusive. If it is, then one is probably driving too fast for conditions anyway.
This is another difference of opinion that cannot be resolved, sort of the like the "how often should I change my oil" thread that just made me give up on the Accord discussion forum.
Can we agree that ESC is potentially a useful safety feature for most drivers and move on?
True. It also MAY have been enough. Since the car she was driving did not have ESC we will never know. Point is, all drivers will have a moment of inattention or unfortunate circumstances where ESC will have the potential to save your life.
And if you're such an unaware and uninvolved driver that you don't even realize that there's an issue before ESC kicks in, perhaps you should take the bus. I certainly don't want an ESC system that's constantly "micro-managing" my driving even under normal circumstances.
If you drive in a manner where the ESC needs to constantly "micro-manage" your driving then you are part of the demographic you describe.
You misunderstood my point completely. My statement was in response to the suggestion that ESC is always working in the background making seamless adjustments. To me, that sounds like it has the potential of being "over-protective" and engaging before most drivers would even need it to. And from what I've read, some systems tend to do so. That's what I consider "micro-management". ESC should be a safety net that comes into play only in an emergency... it shouldn't be within even striking distance of the point of taking over your driving under any other circumstances.
And with a properly designed ESC system with an intelligently chosen threshold for engagement, I can assure you that my typical driving habits wouldn't cause such a system to engage. I'm not a reckless driver by any means.
In some cases, that may be true, but I don't agree that this applies to all cases. For example, ESC can intervene if someone driving car A misjudges and takes a curve too fast. If car B has superior handling dynamics, it may be able to take that curve at that speed with no problem, with ESC not required.
That certainly doesn't apply in all cases, though. I don't disagree that ESC could be useful in some circumstances in any car, regardless of the car's handling capabilities. My only point was that I'd choose a better handling car before I'd choose a poorer handling car just to get the ESC. A better handling car with ESC would be the ideal, but given the two choices covered by this forum, I'd still choose the Accord. I'm sorry if this position offends supporters of ESC. You may choose what you'd like, and if you prefer to give a higher priority to ESC over superior handling dynamics, then by all means do so.
At any rate, I agree that ESC is potentially a useful safety feature, and we can move on, as far as I'm concerned.
I can describe what I mean by the potentially intrusive ESC system using ABS systems. I've driven some cars with ABS that's so sensitive that it kicks in too readily, in conditions where I feel it's not necessary. This causes the car to stop too quickly and interferes with my ability to properly modulate braking. With other cars, it seems that the ABS has much better calibration, and it kicks at just the right time. It works with me rather than against me. And it's certainly there in the case of an emergency.
The overly sensitive ABS system is intrusive, IMO, and an overly sensitive and "helpful" ESC system would be similarly instrusive.
My guess is you don't have any real time with a car that has a DSC type system. I don't doubt you are a top-notch driver, but I was trying to suggest trying an emergency manuevuer in a car that has DSC and a the same car with it switched off. In which case do you think you have a better chance?
Please show me where I said that AWD is "worthless?"
I never said you did, I merely point out the uninformed comments on DSC is similiar to the uninformed comments on AWD. I also point out the comments about people thinking they are invincible with DSC is erroneous.
Would you take a non-ABS car over an ABS car because you think ABS is worthless or too sensitive?
I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion, and we've gotten along for years with ABC/DSC/TC and the like, but to think you can handle the car as well without all of these safety features as with these safety features in a high-speed panic situation, I believe is an uninformed opinion.
My understanding is that ESC kicks in when asymmetric wheel slip is detected during lateral acceleration and the car begins to yaw around it's polar axis. In any such situation, I'd be happy to let ESC attempt to correct the problem - I don't ever skid, drift or spin my family car on purpose (even though I sometimes howl the tires on a favorite corner or two).
If ESC were to "interfere" before something obvious was amiss, how exactly would the system sense the problem? Just curious - perhaps I don't understand ESC sensors as well as I think I do.
Sir, in fact spinouts - and rollovers - were very common in these cars. It was a relatively imexpensive, relatively powerful RWD car with an independent suspension that appealed to new performance car owners.
They typical rollover or spin occurred when the driver entered a turn - often a decreasing radius on-ramp - at what appeared to be too high a speed. They would then back off the throttle, which would transfer weight to the front of the car, decreasing the normal force on the rear tires that helped them stick. The suspension geometry wasn't especially well controlled (although many cars like early BMW's and Porsche 911's were worse) and the transfer in weight forward would cause the rear end to rise, and negative camber - the rear wheels closer together at the bottom than at the top - to set in. The combination of less weight and negative camber would cause the rear end to slide out. Stabbing the brakes made it even worse. These drivers tended to blame the car or the environment for a completely predictable vehicle response.
The rollovers usually occured when the driver hit the edge of the pavement. As they were leaving the roadway, they would often turn the front wheels sharply in an attempt to "save" themselves. This would present the wheel sideways to the directon of travel, where it would dig in t othe soft shoulder and "trip" the car. The speeds at which this would occur were suprisingly low - I saw one occur at an autocross at Orange, MA airport where the 'Z was going no more than 30 mph when he hit the edge of the pavement - usually called "the marbles" because loose dirt made it very slippery - and slid off the pavement. He was going so slowly that the car came to rest on its roof, and 5-6 of us walked over and pushed it back onto the wheels again. Competition drivers are trained to clamp on the brakes and enjoy the ride - the verge of most race tracks is plowed dirt and you slow down very fast. Best to see what you hit out the windshield, instead of the driver's window...
If you went to wrecking yards at the time, you'd see rows of Z cars that had been rolled. These were popular to buy to use as a race car or autocross car. Porsche stopped selling the 911 Turbos in the U.S. after nealry 1/2 of them were crashed - backwards - when owners with more money than skill backed off in a turn an looped them. They were concerned they'd get sued. I encourage everyone to try autocrossing or some other driving competition so they can get some comparison of their driving skill - it's always humbling.
This same process occurs in FWD sedans like the Accord and Camry. It's just less dramatic because these cars tend to be a little nose-heavy and tuned for the average driver - understeering in almost all conditions. This means the rear end of the car will track at almost all times and the drag from the overloaded front tires will cause you to slow down enough to regain control - before you run out of road.....
So, if the idea of VDC appeals to you, oday your choice between Camry and Accord has to be Camry. But a complete lack of driving skill, poor situational awareness, and lack of any understanding of vehicle dynamics won't save you. Making figure 8's at 20mph in a parking lot is illustrative, but does not reflect real-world transitions at real-world speeds. I'd resent paying a premium for VDC, just as I resent paying a premium for all the airbags in cars now required to protect the half of the driving population that does not have the common sense to wear seatbelts.
Back towards the topic at hand, I looked at CU and offer some performance comparisons between Accord V6 and Camry V6, if such numbers matter to you:
Camry V6 - 0-30 3.2 ; 0-60 8.7; 45-65 5.5 s; 1/4 mi 16.8 s @ 84 mph. Overall MPG 20, 150 mi trip 22. Lane avoidance 51.0 mph.
Accord V6 - 0-30 3.1s ; 0-60 7.4s; 45-65 4.2s; and 1/4 mi 15.9s @ 93 mph. Overall MPG 26, 150 mi trip 23. Lane avoidance 51.5 mph.
These are two of the best selling sedans in the world, year-after-year, so this is not a life-changing decision, most likely.
The poster who opined that ESC was making constant "corrections" in the background was incorrect. He probably confused "corrections" with "monitoring."
Exactly! If you want to hang the rear of the car out while cornering then ESC might interfere. Under such circumstances, you may want the threshold of the system set high enough to allow some oversteer. But in front drive FAMILY sedans such as Camcords this is unnecessary. There is no downside that I can see to having ESC in this type of car.
With respect to vehicle stability systems, many here seem to majorly underestimate the value of such systems. I would point to many studies already cited here, but of particular interest is the editorial by Editor-In-Chief Csaba Csere in this months Car and Driver, which calls ESC "The greatest advance in safety since seatbelts".
This, coming from one of the most sporting of the mainstream mags, favoring driver involvement, and a perennial proponent of all things Honda.
So if ESC is the greatest advance in safety since seatbelts, you cant have the greatest advance on your Accord.
~alpha
After checking out the IS300 without VSC sliding wildly in tight turns at 20MPH on wet pavement, I am scared stiff to drive ANY CAR to the mountain on my ski trips.
The mountain roads are always slushy/icy with many tight turns on steep grades! By the time you can feel the tires losing traction or the car yawing, it's too late! Any response from the driver would likely make the problems worse. That's why we need the VSC sensors and automatic controls.
I never claimed to have superior driving skills. It's just luck that I am still alive today after all those ski trips!
So to improve the chance of survival, I will buy the $1000 VSC option and all airbags! It's cheap insurance for years against probability of pain, injuries or death!
The article I am reading on CR says that the vehicle has a 210 hp 3l V6 and that a 3.3 is available. If you have #'s for the 3.3, why don't you post them? Other tests have recorded 0-60 times of as little as 7.0 seconds for the 3.3l Camry.
Let me help beat the point into the ground and stomp on it with both boots: if VDC/ESC/ etc is at the top of your list of requirements, don't consider an Accord - it's not available.
"....I resent paying a premium for all the airbags in cars now required to protect the half of the driving population that does not have the common sense to wear seatbelts."
Airbags aren't designed or installed to protect people who don't wear seatbelts. In fact, they can be quite dangerous for those who don't wear seatbelts. That's why they're referred to as "Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS)" or other variants.
Hence the following language in Toyota's legal disclaimer regarding airbags:
"To decrease the risk of injury from a deploying airbag, always wear seatbelts, sit upright in the middle of the seat as far back as possible from the airbag modules and do not lean against the door."
Exactly and very well said.
That was my only point.
Don't get me wrong- I will agree wholeheartedly that the Accord 3.0L V6 is a superior engine to the currently used 3.0L in the Camry. However, I think the added hp and torque of the VVTi, and the 5 speed auto instead of the 4, would shave a few tenths off CRs 0-60 and add an MPG or so to the overall of a very unimpressive 20MPG that you site for the old combo. The only direct comparison between the Accord 3.0L and the Camry 3.3L that I know of is here on edmunds.... and the two run neck and neck. T
~alpha
So to improve the chance of survival, I will buy the $1000 VSC option and all airbags! It's cheap insurance for years against probability of pain, injuries or death!< If this is truly the case you should not buy either the Accord or Camry. There are other vehicles with lower loss rates. If your #1 priority is not having ESC but simply preventing pain, injury or death, there are safer vehicles. Many prospective purchasers do not realize that the 4 and 5 star safety ratings are only relative to other vehicles in the same class, not absolute values. The 94-97 Accord posted a "Driver Death Rate" of 47 per million vehicle years. The 97 Camry, 37. Consider a Nissan Quest minivan, at only 18. http://www.iihs.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm#ll Now, someone is probably going to change the rules on me and insist that loss rates are not just about the vehicle - they are also about who buys that vehicle and how they drive them. I agree - and I surmise that the BMW's and Benzs are involved in more accidents - especially single car accidents - because the people who buy them drive faster, more aggressiely, and probably more often. Mr. Csere bases his conclusion on the reduction in single car accident crashes and fatalities that some of these cars demonstrated. But single car accidents are only a portion of accidents and deaths: the IIHS also logs multiple car accidents, and rollovers. The page above is one of the first ones I came to - feel free to mine your own data, it's kind of interesting. Single-car accidents accounted for 11 of 44 (1997 Camry) or 15 of 58 for the 94-97 Accord. For the 94-97 Mercedes C Class, it was 22 of 69. That's 25 or 26 % for the Accord/Camry versus 32% for the C Class Benz. Other years and models would differ. BTW, ESC is avaiable on the 2005 Nissan Quest SE....
I think the most significant data is the Driver Deaths per Million Registered Vehicle Miles. This data shows how badly drivers fared in various cars, in combined single and multiple-car accidents.
In this measure, the Camry is rated the best among all sedans, even besting the Volvo 850. Compared to the Camry's Drivers' Death Rate normalized as 1, rates in other cars are higher: Nissan Maxima 1.32, Mercedez C-Class 1.40, Mazda 626 1.59, Accord 1.68, Altima 2.11, Avalon 2.16...
Domestic cars are rated teribble. Worst is the GM Sunfire at 5.37. The only car rated better than the Camry is the luxury Infinity J30 at 0.54. Lexus models were not in the data, but I suspect they would do better than the Camry.
In plain languange, drivers are five times more likely to die driving a Sunfire than driving a Camry!
Thanks a lot Garandman. I will buy a Camry for myself and a GM Sunfire for my brother-in-law!
Here's how they address variations among driver types:
"The computed rates reflect the influence of
vehicle designs plus their patterns of use and
the demographics of their drivers. Comparisons
among vehicles should be interpreted with these factors in mind.
The nonvehicle factors that can influence death
rates (use patterns and driver demographics)
are less likely to vary within vehicle body style/
size groups than across groups. Yet even within
groups, big differences often exist. Consider
the Honda Civic’s rate of 47 deaths per million
registered vehicle years, which is much lower
than rates for many other small four-door cars.
The Nissan Sentra’s rate of 100 per million, for
example, is much higher, as are rates for the
Geo Prizm (125 per million), Dodge/Plymouth
Neon (129), and Kia Sephia (148)."
It would be great to see an updated report every few years, to see how/whether advances in safety technologies influence the death rates.
A sporty Mitsubishi model that was not inherently unsafe had one of the highest death rates--probably because the Mitsus were driven primarily by kids with room temperature IQs.....Richard
~alpha
"The nonvehicle factors that can influence death
rates (use patterns and driver demographics)
are less likely to vary within vehicle body style/size groups than across groups."
Just as with crash test ratings, you can compare death rates among vehicles of the same size/weight, but not, say, a large station wagon and a small sedan.
If two vehicles are in the same weight class, have the same body style, and cost about the same, I think it's reasonable to compare the death rates.
Not really. I'd like to know what is the average age of the primary drivers of a car like the Mitsubishi Lancer vs. the Toyota Corolla. The Corolla's age is likely to be much higher, and therefore, voids the comparison. I see a lot of 'Too Fast, Too Furious' Lancer drivers who'd like to believe there little OZ's are Evos, and I see a lot of relaxed, aged people behind the wheels of Corolla LEs.
~alpha
Year-to-Date Sales (units)
2004 2003 Change
Toyota Camry 426,990 413,296 +3.0%
Honda Accord 386,770 397,750 -3.1%
Lexus ES330 75,916 65,762 +15.1%
Acura TL 77,895 56,770 +36.8%
If I'm cross-shopping several different cars in the same category (such as the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry), I would take the death rates into account. It might not be the biggest determining factor, but it's of interest.
~alpha
Really? I can understand wanting safety features like ABS/TCS, ESC, & multiple airbags. I don't think one can draw any meaningful conclusions about relative safety from accident or death rates. There are just too many variables involved.
~alpha
Stats on large populations ususually neutralize random variables and point to valid trends or modes. In this study, it is safe to assume that the drivers' demographics as well as other variables are evenly distributed in cars of the same class.
One can derive more accurate information by controlling large variables or segmenting the data in specific ways to obtain specific information, i.e. death rates of drivers aged between 30-50 driving same class cars...
This study clearly establishes safety records of cars and their predictable trends.
You said it better than I could.
Your last paragraph says it well if we could segment the data to equalize ages, driving styles etc., a conclusion could then be meaningful. A single death rate for a model means very little.
http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3507.pdf (p.2)
"Consider the Honda Civic’s rate of 47 deaths per million registered vehicle years, which is much lower than rates for many other small four-door cars.
The Nissan Sentra’s rate of 100 per million, for
example, is much higher, as are rates for the
Geo Prizm (125 per million), Dodge/Plymouth
Neon (129), and Kia Sephia (148).
The upper confidence bound for the Civic’s death rate is below the lower confidence bounds for the other four cars. This means the lower rate for the Civic isn’t due to chance, and it seems likely that differences in the designs of the vehicles play a significant role in the differences between the Honda Civic and the other small cars."
If the IIHS thinks its possible to draw valid conclusions from this information, I'll believe it.
better ride, better mileage, better brakes, better trunk, better key, better radio, better storage and room, better visibility, more solid feel, full size spare, i could go on and on. it's a grownups car.
only two advantages to the accord. the seats are the best that i have encountered, and the price but then again you would expect to pay more for a better car.
Better handling, better steering feel, better performance, better stopping power, more comfortable seats, nicer interior materials, more usable trunk, more solid feel, and you don't feel like you're driving a Buick.
Only two advantages to the Camry. It's easier to get into as the door open height is higher. And according to one owner, it has a better key, albeit an expensive one....
A few factual corrections though:
-Most reviewers find the Accord to have better brake feel, but similar Camrys stop shorter.
Car and Driver, Feb 03
Accord EX 4 5M 70-0 185 feet
Camry SE 4 5M 70-0 178 feet
Motor Trend, Jan 04
Camry XLE V6 60-0 127 feet
Accord EX V6 60-0 139 feet
AMCI Mitsubishi commissioned testing:
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/galant/braking_results.html
Camry XLE V6 70-0 181 feet
Accord EX V6 70-0 186 feet
Similarly, the Accord does feel more driver oriented, but reference the same tests as above for handling measures- the Camry will match or outhandle the Accord in objective measurements, and only the Camry offers VSC, which C/D editor Csaba Csere has called the greatest safety advance since seatbelts. One study regarding stability control:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr102804.htm.
In keeping with safety, the Honda has the definite advantage for its standard side curtains. When equipped with side curtains the two are test very much the same in the IIHS dynamic side impact. However, the Accord DX lacks a rear stabilizer bar, something the Camry Std. does not. Having owned a tail happy Civic without a rear stabilizer bar, I'd skip the Accord DX altogether, for that reason.
Nicer interior materials is highly debatable, as the two are both held in high regard. Certainly, the Camry's interior is more traditional, and to my eyes the Accord's is more fashionable. But both are extremely well constructed.
I'm not sure how the Accord's trunk is more usable, given that all Camry models have a 60/40 split rear seat and 3 cubic feet more of space.
In terms of engines, the Accord's 3.0L V6 is the clearly the superior of the two 3.0L offerings. The Camry's 3.3L, though, is the equal of that engine, and offers more torque. The Accord's 2.4L will outrun the Camry 2.4L by about three-quarters of a second to 60, though the Camry's four is a bit quieter and idles more smoothly.
These two vehicles are not immensely popular with strong repeat purchasing by accident. They are exceptionally well engineered, but very different, which is awesome. The Camry is clearly biased for those looking for family sedan with a lux ride/flair. The Accord is clearly the choice for those who want a precision feel.
~alpha
In terms of fuel economy, both with automatic L4 Cylinder, they have identical fuel economy (24/34)! But for manual, accord has better fuel economy (26/34) while camry get only (24/33)
In terms of safety, accord wins! Lower chance of rollover, better Static Stability Factor, <bold> Standard Front Side Airbags and Side curtain airbags</bold>. NHTSA does not have the data for 2005 camry Front impact. Accord did better on side crash with SAB and SCAB, while camry was tested without it!
Just keep this in mind, both of them are great cars. However, they both have their weaknesses (almost everything in the world is not perfect)! IMHO, try/get the car that fits you the best!