By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
All Hondas will have VSC soon along with the standard side curtain airbags the Accord already has.
Besides VSA & some cosmetic changes, what other new features are possible - TPMS (direct or indirect), auto on/off head lamps, next-gen NAV.
There might be some nominal restyling, but don't expect much. There could be added features like stability control or making other currently optional features standard......Richard
I'd use "pimp" instead of "jazz" but YMMV....
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=347007
........Richard
better warranty, better service (?), sportshift, 20 more hp (than the Accord V6), better sound system, better styling (?), firmer ride, etc.
And keep in mind that the TL will also go through a MMC this Fall which means some new features not available on the 06 Accord (and maybe some new features that will make it into both models like TPMS, MP3 compatibility). It would be nice if the Accord EX V6 got HIDs which the Altima 3.5 has.
Comparing the current versions I am strongly leaning towards the Accord. Current Accord price seem pretty competitive with Camry's, with great deals to be had (several hundred bucks below invoice). The only aspect of the styling I don't care too much in the 05' Accord is the rear lights. In fact, I prefer the lights on the 04' model. The "all red" light looks cheap.
Just my opinion.
I took a close look at the apparent 2006 Accord pics. I don't think the tail light assembly shown is doable on the current Accord model. It would take a major back fender (and bumper) redesign to accomodate. If the picture is indeed an Accord, Honda would have to be incorporate it in the next major redesign. Incidentally, I prefer my "stop" tail lights "red" and my turn signals, back and front, "yellow" in colour. Just my opinion.
I agree with you petl, great seats on the 86 Camry. I never felt uncomfortable after a 3-4 hour trip.
With the seat in the middle of my Accord there is adequate room for an adult on each side as long as the adult is not too large.
I'd rather have amber any day, knowing someone is tailing me in poor visibility conditions. The same types of studies led to many firetrucks changing from red to optic yellow for safety/visibility. I'm an industrial designer and the "all red" offends functional and aesthetic design direction.
I just returned from checking out the Accord Hybrid, and am seriously considering purchase, but will probably wait another model year or two based on that simple (but important) issue. Either that, or, does anyone know where I can find aftermarket taillights (senseable, not the tuner car-toon junk) ? Maybe I could have them install 2004 model year tails with at least the clear section to brak up the mass of cheap red. At least the bulbs under the clear lens light up in amber. Other thoughts on this?
How this trend got started, I have no idea, but I too think amber signals make more sense.
I think some vehicles are especially bad with the all-red lamps (other than the backup lamps). One example is the 1996-2000 Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan. When the brake lights are on, the separate red turn signal is effectively masked by the adjacent brake lamp. The current-generation Honda Civic sedan also has this problem.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Couldn't you just buy the car and then drop a C-note to get the color changed? It should be easy to do. I'd bet that the dealer would do it for you for free if it meant selling you a car.
Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?
And as far as changing the rear bulb to green...I don't think it won't work...chances are you'll wind up with a shade of brown. Yes, when you add green and red together you'll get yellow, but this is different. There's not enough green light generated from the bulb to overcome the red lense.
If yellow rear turn signals are a priority, either buy a 03 or 04, or buy a 05 and replace the turn signals with a used pair off a 03 or 04.
Besides, here in Massachusetts....who uses turn signals???
I concur with your post #2175 about the irrelevance of taillight color to a vehicle purchasing decision. Although some people may not buy a vehicle because of the shape of the mirror or size of the ashtray.
You asked "Also, where can I see this spyshot of the 2006 Accord?" The "spyshot" in question is, in all likelihood, not even of a Honda. It most resembles a recent Galant.
Why, then, does the Camry outsell it? Well, first, most drivers can't tell if a car is close to a BMW rather than being a much improved Buick in terms of its handling. In fact, many Americans like a soft ride. Second, it seems like the Accord costs something like $1000-$1500 more for a comparable model (Accord LX vs. Camry LE), because it probably costs that much more to make the better engine and suspension. The Camry is an outstanding car, and is a bit better looking, and it's a Toyota, and therefore the Camry sells c.440,000 a year, while the Accord sells c.340,000 a year. I hope Honda sticks to its plan to engineer a better car, but in some ways that strategy may be costing it a few sales. Or maybe it's just that the current Accord is lacking in the looks Dept.
Also, when you're talking about the Accord DX and safety... note that the DX does not have a rear stabilizer bar. Talk about sloppy emergency handling, given my experience with a Civic DX sans stabilizer, tail happiness is guaranteed in evasive manuvers. You also cant get any Accord with stability just yet, so thats a big advantage to the Camry if you're talking total safety. (The safest one of the bunch, IMO, would be the Camry SE V6 with VSC/Side Curtains).
~alpha
That's what I bought and stability control was the deciding factor. I do think the Camry is slightly better looking and the SE-V6, with its 17" wheels & spoiler, the best of the Camrys.
For my needs, the Accords better handling and somewhat sportier nature didn't really matter. I think the 3.3 liter V6 offers at least comparable performance to the VTEC Honda and its 240 lb-ft of torque vs the Honda's 212 should provide a real world advantage. Still, I'm sure I would have been very happy with the Accord also.
Btw, 387,000 Accords were sold last year so the Camry sales lead is probably more like 50,000. JD Power data indicates the average Camry buyer is 59 vs 50 for the Accord. It would be interesting to know the mix of 4 cyl vs 6 cyl engines on the two cars. I think I've read that about 70% of buyers pick the 4.
Haven't seen Accords used as fleet cars.
Could it be that Toyota has a fleet buyers program that Honda doesn't offer? If so, then maybe the Accord is MORE popular than Camry if only individual purchasing decisions are counted.
Does anybody out there have fleet vs consumer sales for both Accord and Camry?
.............Richard
But I think Taurus and Impala take the award as "Fleet Queens"
But we could have, and would have given the financial consequences, adjusted to the Camry SE's steering, handling, and ride, had that ride, secondly, not made us queasy. It flat out made us green. Not bad, and not detectably upon just test drives. Just enough to hate the car upon actual ownership. It's important to note that the base rental Camry was even worse than the SE. It rides swell, until you hit the undulations common in two lane northern back roads.
The Accord is fine, ride-wise, as is our other car, a Civic Hybrid.
I, too, think the Camry looks a bit nicer on the outside. I even prefer its interior. And in real world driving, the Camry SE's 3.3 V6 is, if anything, even smoother and zippier than the Accord's excellent V6, probably because of its extra torque.
I'd advise anybody interested in any Camry to rent one for a month before buying.
I also recognize that like so many other things when it comes to cars, preferences in ride quality vary. I can imagine that lots of Americans would not be bothered by the Camry's radical softness, and wouldn't be sickened by it, either, but would, rather, lap it up.
Interesting. I just made my first short trip. A 400 mile round trip on the Indiana Toll Road, I-69 and I-94 to Detroit. Several stretches of very old pavement (although I wouldn't say undulating). Didn't notice anything except the nice smooth ride.
Yes, the steering doesn't impart much road feel but when I'm just cruising down the highway or around town, that doesn't bother me. In my test drives of the Camry and Accord (over the same route), I couldn't really tell the difference but that just means the route wasn't challenging enough or I'm not sensitive to subtle changes in driving dynamics.
I agree that a renting a car for a day or two would be the best way to really test them out. Unfortunately, you can't rent an Accord (Honda doesn't sell to fleets) so a long term test would be difficult.
My guess is that 90% of the driving population could be happy with either of these cars. It's unfortunate for a few that they find something they can't live with only after making the purchase.
More like a brown to me.
Isn't yellow a primary color?? (any color with any other color wont make yellow)
and isn't green made with mixing blue and yellow?
When using the additive method, the primary colors are red, blue, and green. The more additive primaries you add, the lighter the resultant color. Mix all three and you get white, as used in a color TV.
The subtractive primaries are red, blue, and yellow--to be exact, magenta, cyan (light blue), and yellow. These are the colors that, together with black, are used in color printing.
The more subtractive primaries you mix, the darker the color. Mix all three and you get black (OK, brown, but with kindergarten paints you can't expect miracles).
As a general proposition, additive primaries involve adding more LIGHT (as in a color TV), while subtractive primaries involve mixing more PIGMENT (as in paints and crayons).
Additive colors are easy to demonstrate on a color computer monitor equipped with a color-control program. Just so happens I have one right here.
How do we make yellow? By adding full-strength red and full-strength green. Adding two-thirds strength blue gives us a lighter (not darker) yellow.
Full-strength blue, red, and green produce bright white. This is a counterintuitive result if you learned your color-mixing skills in kindergarten.
But we know that white light can be broken into all the colors of the rainbow. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn the process also works in reverse--i.e, the colors of the rainbow can be combined to make white.
Hope this helps.
We have five vehicles and I have no idea what color the taillights are on any of them but the Accord V6 because of the emphatic opinions here stated. Apparently most purchasers are more concerned with the part they sit in.
But multicolor taillights are more expensive to manufacture, or replace. Molds that inject three colors cost more and take longer to cycle.If cars with amber turn signals got into fewer accidents that would be a different story.
One of the main reasons for the switch to all red is so that LEDs can be used. A single panel/array of LEDs with multi-display modes as Cadillac was an early innovator about 10 years ago.
Yes, you could have multi-color LEDs, both red and yellow. But the auto designers seem more intent on focussing on faster light turn-on, longer light life, mutli-display patterns and varying intensity based on whether the brakes are applied normally or slammed on, or ABS activated or EBD.
I am not sure the cost differential between yellow and red molding is the real answer. Some have gone to clear lens with the light bulb as the color. I think the real reason imitation the sincerest form of flattery; since the designers of the expensive luxury cars have gone to a single color Accords and other cars are following.
But to chose a car on whether it has yellow blinker lights or not is pretty absurd; the guy probably doesn't remember hand signals. Wait a second, I remember, I did paint the back of my left arm and hand bright yellow for signalling. Actually, it would be nice around here if the people used their turn signals at all, no matter what color they were.
Blink-Blink,
MidCow
Honda products appear to use about twice the fastening hardware therefore must be twice as intensive in their labor content.
To me that means Toyota employs far more talented engineers and spends a lot more time and efforts into the research, development, engineering, design, testing and production of their cars. Toyota is about 4 times bigger than Honda and can produce cars to custom orders with various options on their lines, whereas Honda can only produce limited number of standard models. That is a huge difference in terms of mangement,. controls and logistics to make it happen.
Driving 5 year-old Accords and Civics and you will find a lot of rattles, squeaks, steering looseness, engine sputtering, brakes fading...whereas comparable Camrys and Corollas tend to be solid, rattle-free, with smooth, quiet engine and brake responses.
It's subjective but I also think the interior and exterior materials in Honda's products appear worn out and faded earlier.
To be fair, my friend's MBZ's top of the line 2001 500SL, which costed him $78K, after a few years also has terrible engine, throttle and transmission responses, braking problems, shoddy suspension, cheap, worn-out interior and exterior with very dim head lights. The stereo also sounds far worse than either the Accord or the Camry.
Just my subjective evaluations. Take it for what it's worth.