We are trying to turn over a new leaf. Our eyes still wander but our goal is to keep our current cars til they hit 100,000 miles. Yes, this does mean that I may have to pass on the 06-07 EX V6 6-speed. That or get a job where my commute puts 80,000 miles on my car in two years
Don't be so quick to dump the Altima. They are nice looking and supposedly reliable.
...I have managed to get over 40K miles on my 05 Altima since I got in in March of 2004. It was right at 40,090 when I had my accident last week.
There is NO Way I could trade it in and get anything for it...
LOL....I'd better off giving it away. :P
That cars has been everywhere..New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Atlanta, Charlotte, all major cities of the South.
It's been good to me. I have had no major problems per se. I just wanted the Accord a little more from the beginning. I just didn't like the back design at the time of my purchase...
If the 04 Accord would have had the back end of the 06, I would have bought it from the beginning...
Instead of making a blanket statement with out any proof, just show me any industry figures that contradict any of my statements.
Being an engineering manager, I can say that opening up the hood of the Accord and you find wires, hoses, ducts, plastic parts and what nots... running all over the engine bay in random fashion, whereas the Camry's engine bay is laid out very neatly and logically.
I requested you offer some specifics about the relevancy of your experience. I worked as an engineer in the R&D group of a molder of plastic parts for OEM's and have worked with factory engineers in Ford and GM plants, and my experience directly contradicts your opinion.
Honda products appear to use about twice the fastening hardware therefore must be twice as intensive in their labor content.
The five million dollar MIT study on lean manufacturing didn't measure fastening hardware use. They measured labor content per vehicle. But as you were nice enough to ask, a quick google search gave these 1998 Harbour Report figures.
98 LABOR PRODUCTIVITY COST PENALTY
Labor Hours Per Vehicle (Assembly, Stamping, Powertrain) Daimler Chrysler 44.25; GM 45.60; Ford 34.78; Honda 30.76; Nissan 30.76; Toyota 30.38
No one is twice as bad as Toyota. Honda - and Nissan - are nearly identical to Toyota.
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.
If size alone proved this, we wouldn't be having this discussion - we'd all be driving GM cars.....
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.
In keping with your request to document my contentions, I went to Consumer Reports and found the following Hondas to be part of the list of "...all 1997 through 2004 models that showed better-than-average reliability in our latest survey. "
Sure doesn't seem like a big problem in either camp. I'd be equally curious about the average age of Camry owners relative to Accords, it would not surprise me to see an older, more sedate group of drivers.
In the 2005 wave 1 IQS from JD Power, the Accord ranked #5 and the Camry #6 among premium midsize cars. #1-#4 were GM midsize sedans!!! Median Accord buyer age was 52 vs Camry at 56. By contrast, median age Impala buyer (#2 in quality ranking) was 61. Lowest age was Mazda6 at 40 but it also ranked dead last of out 22 vehicles.
That seems about right...at least in my family...It's wierd, but here is how our Accord ownership looks in my extended family...
Me..........................Age18 2006 EX 4-dr(Youngest on these boards perhaps???) Mom.......................Age49 1996 LX 4-dr Dad........................Age48 2005 EX 4-dr Grandmother..............Age71 2002 LX 4-dr Second Cousin .......Age30 1998 EXV6 4-dr
Yeah...we're a "Honda Family". When we have Christmas at our house, it looks like we are shooting a commercial for Honda...we have four Accords, a 97 Civic, an 05 Odyssey, and a CR-V! That's just with grandparents/aunt/cousin!
eh camry is the best all around car... and this is coming from a valet who has driven just about everything;
camry is just so damn solid; there is nothing out of place; i have never driven a car so well designed and laid out for the money
for sports cars, i have never driven a car as finished as the 06 civic si; for the 20k price you get near BMW fit and finish
both companies are good:
regarding 06 ex v6 6spd:
its ok; probably better than owning an audi; i think the interior is kind dated when compared to the new civics; imo toyota has a better interior when comparing 06s. the stick shift is alright; i prefer the si 6sp w/ the short throw
The new 2007 Camry will have hybrid four cylinder with 197 hp and great mileage, in the high 30s. Their new V-6 has been borrowed from the Avalon with 268 hp and they add a sixth gear to the auto in the V-6. This will be tough competition for the guys at Honda. I can hardly wait to see what they will come out with in 2008 to trump this new Camry offering.
The new 2007 Camry will have hybrid four cylinder with 197 hp and great mileage, in the high 30s. Their new V-6 has been borrowed from the Avalon with 268 hp and they add a sixth gear to the auto in the V-6. This will be tough competition for the guys at Honda. I can hardly wait to see what they will come out with in 2008 to trump this new Camry offering.
I wonder if the extra power will steal sales like some people think it will. When the Accord and Altima came out with 240 horsepower in 2002-03, people (myself included I'm afraid) gawked at the fact that the top engine in the Camry was still just 192 hp. Shoot, the Camry of 1995 had 188 hp, didn't it?
I think what Camry buyers are looking for isn't power. What they need to monitor is the ever rising prices of Toyotas, as I imagine the "16,988 LE" deals going on in Birmingham will be replaced by "$19,988 LEs."
I'd say anyone looking at the Accord V6 is also a potential Camry V6 buyer. Performance-wise, the Accord V6 and 3.3L V6 Camry were about the same. The new 3.5 liter should give the Camry a definite edge but I don't think it will matter to most buyers. At least the XLE V6 won't be at a big disadvantage like it was with the 3.0L engine.
" wonder if the extra power will steal sales like some people think it will. When the Accord and Altima came out with 240 horsepower in 2002-03, people (myself included I'm afraid) gawked at the fact that the top engine in the Camry was still just 192 hp. Shoot, the Camry of 1995 had 188 hp, didn't it?
I think what Camry buyers are looking for isn't power. What they need to monitor is the ever rising prices of Toyotas, as I imagine the "16,988 LE" deals going on in Birmingham will be replaced by "$19,988 LEs." "
I tend to agree. I recently ignored the 2007 Camry in favor of the Accord. In the first place, you can't get a manual in the V6 Camry at any price. This, plus the ability to turn the stability control system off, puts the Accord at a huge advantage when it comes to being driven enthusiastically, regardless of a ten percent horsepower deficit.
Throw in the fact that a comparably equipped 2007 Camry will run near $30K right now as opposed to the EX V6, which I purchased just over a month ago for $25250, or $2500 below MSRP. This isn't five hundred dollars or even a thousand we're talking about, it's closer to four or five thousand dollars. The Accord is too damn good a car to willfully pay close to fifteen percent more for something that's not significantly sportier or more luxurious.
Referring to the Camry? For the difference in price, all I see are fog lights and an electrochromatic rear-view mirror, neither of which is able to overcome the lack of a manual transmission and the electronic nanny that steps in when things get spirited.
For the difference in price, all I see are fog lights and an electrochromatic rear-view mirror, neither of which is able to overcome the lack of a manual transmission and the electronic nanny that steps in when things get spirited
Look a little closer if you are looking at all.
Your postulation about the price of the XLE V6 with Heated Seats, Stability control, floormats, and Satellite radio is wrong to start with. The MSRP of that vehicle is $29,838 and I can buy it all day for $27,429.
So what do you get for $2,179 premium over your Accord:
. A 2007 model, not a 2006 . More HP and torque . 6 Speed auto transmission . Auto headlights . Blue tooth w/steering wheel controls . Heating/AC steering wheel controls . 440 Watt stereo that blows away the Honda system . Homelink . Electro mirror . Compass . Trip Computer . Reclining rear seats . Interior air Ionizer . Manual rear seat sunshade . Trunk Mat . Trunk Cargo net . Tire Pressure Monitoring . Drivers knee airbag . Compass . 2 more mpg city . 2 more mpg Highway . Almost 4% More Interior Room . Almost 4% bigger trunk
and you could save $520 more by not getting the electronic nanny Stabilty Control/Traction Control option.
and if you wanted NAV, it is $800 invoice cheaper than the Honda system.
But the Honda has 4 more cupholders, LED tailights and 17" wheels. Wow!
Anyone getting the XLE V6 really needs to pay the extra coupla hundred and get the Smart Key system. Its pretty neat. (Also not available on the Honda) ~alpha
If you want to Auto-X or drift, a CamCord is not on your shopping list. That said, the stability control and manual are less of an issue in this segment. The majority (I dont have numbers) of buyers in this segment's demo are more likely to buy an auto tranny and like the safety of stability control. It would be nice to turn it off, but I personally wouldn't steer away from a car because of it.
If you are looking for a value priced sedan to really enjoy driving in a spirited manner, buy an Evo, SRT-4, or a WRX/STi.
I say value priced, because the real performers are Volvo S60R, M5, S4/S6 and the like which are $40k++
The stereo is the only thing on that list that might inspire a moment of regret on my behalf, but certainly not over two thousand dollar's worth, and most certainly not if it means giving up the manual.
More mileage to go with the higher power...now there's your best talking point. That's the kind of stuff that induces people to open their wallet and spend a few thousand to save a few hundred. However, as the Accord I purchased has a manual transmission, the mileage difference between the model I bought and a Camry is reduced to one mile per gallon, or less than five percent. I'd also be willing to venture a guess that any advantage the Camry has in power is effectively negated by the presence of a manual transmission in the hands of a reasonably skilled driver.
The rest of the stuff on that list is piffle, at least to this particular shopper. I'm sure my rear seat passengers will suffer just fine through not being able to recline and being forced to breathe unionized air. The window tint I had installed virtually eliminates the need for a self-adjusting mirror (not like adjusting the mirror is a chore worth paying any significant sum to avoid...just like adjusting one's own headlights). I can also continue to suffer through the indignity of having to monitor my own tire pressure as I've done for years (daily on a visual basis, weekly with a gauge and compressor). I religiously avoid using my cell phone when I drive, so Bluetooth is wasted on me. I've got radio controls on one side of the wheel and cruise control on the other, and I hardly feel cheated when I have to reach a bit to adjust the very large, easy to locate climate control knob.
So now I know what I'm missing...but of all the stuff listed, the thing I'd miss the most is the clutch pedal.
"If you are looking for a value priced sedan to really enjoy driving in a spirited manner, buy an Evo, SRT-4, or a WRX/STi."
Room for four adults was a primary consideration, and no compact meets that requirement like a midsize car. Also, I am 6'4" and fitting in the Legacy and Mitsu was problematic. Then there's the matter of being tasteful. If the choice is between buying a winged wonder or shelling out forty grand, I'd have just kept my ailing Focus and saved for another couple of years.
The final three cars I was considering before I purchased were the Legacy GT, the Altima SE-R and the Accord. If I were ten years younger, I'd probably be driving the Legacy right now, but the smoothness of the Accord's "double six" powertrain was just too good for me to pass on.
The number of manual Accords is very, very low; I've heard figures as low as two percent. It's not the "meat" of the segment, but for those drivers who find themselves shoehorned into this segment out of necessity, it provides an option very much worth exploring. There are not many cars that seat four comfortably and offer sub six-second 0-60 acceleration for around $25000, but the Accord sedan with the six-speed manual is one of them. It may not be a canyon carver, but it's got enough power and suspension to be pretty darn entertaining, especially when mixing it up with the six speed. The powertrain in this car is BUTTER.
Since when does a stock Accord sedan turn a sub 6 second 0-60 time? I know the coupe is said to do 5.9 seconds, but I thought the sedan (same powertrain) was a couple tenths slower (as it should be with added weight).
Regardless, I am glad you found what makes you happy. I would venture a guess that as you mentioned it being a rare car, less than 1 in 50 are looking for a manual EX V6 sedan, just very few would be looking for upper trim (SE/XLE) V6 Camrys.
I found it hard to believe myself. I grew up in the 80s, and Mustang GTs and IROC Camaros couldn't crack six seconds. I've never actually measured it myself, but the good people at Car and Driver were willing to abuse the clutch enough to post that time, and Motor Trend apparently equalled it.
The weight difference between the coupe and sedan with the 6MT is only 68 pounds, by the way.
The figure I have most associated with the manual transmission car's production is two percent, so one in fifty would indeed be accurate.
....the good people at Car and Driver were willing to abuse the clutch enough to post that time.
....'box' score: Honda 1 Toyota 0....
..C/D 2/06 shows 5.9 to sixty (plus quartermile at 14.5) for the AV6 6M sedan.
..last summer,my $23.4 + change went to Honda vice Toyota.
...traded the last Toyota with 6 cyl/5M for the AV6 6M coupe......and I've never looked back. Even with VTEC, the fuel efficiency is better with the new car. (And the manual shift Toyota was no slouch in the mileage dept...)
I completely agree with you. I have an 06 EX-V6 6MT coupe, and I love it. It's so much more engaging to drive than the boring Camry. And in Canada the price difference is even worse! I don't care how good anyone's automatic is. The point is, is that I DON'T WANT ONE! Automatics are boring to me. And they are less durable than a properly driven manual. How many automatics do you see out there with 300 000km or more on them? Not a lot, by any manufacturer, and the ones that are have been driven like grandmamobiles. The simple fact of it is that automatics don't stand up to spirited driving on a daily basis. The worst thing manuals need is a clutch replacement if you manage to not grind gears (which is easy unless you suck at driving manuals).
So yes, I'm yet another person that the lack of a V6 + manual combination influenced my descision to buy. Plus I like the looks of the Accord better, and I like the seats better.
You are talking coupe versus sedans also...Apples to Oranges. Most people don't buy sedans for clutch popping stoplight battles. If you bought your Accord coupe for that, great. WE can not talk in specific minority scenarios when making a comparo of this sort. It would be like saying a Neon SRT-4 (yes Mopar freaks, it is a Neon) is a better car than the Accord because it is faster and more fun to drive for less money. While a factual statement in regards to imperical specifications, not really an accurate comparison of vehicles. It should be compared to a WRX or Evo as the Accord can not be called a superior car (generally speaking) because it is half a second quicker 0-60 and offers a manual.
Accord/S2000 have one the best smoothest shifting 6-speeds available.
Engagement difficulty is not a Honda trait.
Go out and drive another Honda 6-speed. Something was obviously wrong with the one you test drove!
You apparently had a demo car that someone abused , either accidently or whatever!
I have 2005 6-speed Accord Coupe with 20,000 miles and it stills shifts a smooth as butter. The only thing that I have driven that shifts better is my 2006 6-speed S2000.
WOW!! The '07 Camry is a stunner, been noticing more and more on the streets and I gotta admit it blows the Accord out of the water. The more potent v-6 in the Camry is gonna be a HUGE selling point not to mention the '07 Camry's classy looks. The warmed over '06 Accord just can't compete in my opinion. (new tail lights?!?! what a joke!!) Toyota really put some Lexus style into this new generation Camry, lord knows if anything happened to my '04 Accord I'd be shopping for a new Toyota.
Well it was a big decision. I had an '02 camry for almost 4 yrs. It was an LE/4cyl. I looked long and hard between the accord and the camry. My favorite feature with the camry was the "ride" - nice and smooth. But, what I wanted in the Camry (XLE with leather and sunroof), I could get an Accord for $2,000-$2,500 less. I think the interior is more luxurious than the '06/'07 camry. The ride might not be as smooth as the Camry, but I think the overall package of the Accord with the price I would have to pay... leaned me to buying an '06 Accord EX-L.
Lexus style? I've never seen a Lexus with a bumpy nose like the Camry. I'm young, and actually prefer the Es350's style over the new Camry, as well as the outgoing Camry's style over the new Camry. Call me conservative, but the new Camry looks too bloated and "swollen" over its chassis. Kind of like a cloud on 4 wheels.
I'm pretty young, and I disagree. In person, I find the Camry to look somewhat GS like, especially from the rear. I wish the Toyota logo were downsized in front, but I like the new fascia, and LOVE the new taillamps. This generation's styling has more character than the outgoing model, and thats evidenced in the fact that the styling is seeming to have a polarizing effect... .you like it... or you dont....
I will also say that color has a lot to do with it as well; I find this generation much more appealing in dark colors. thegraduate, if you havent had a chance, check out the 07 Camry thread for some owner pics- there's a dude on there who just picked up the 07 Camry SE plus NAV, Bluetooth, Leather, VSC, spoiler, remote start, etc... and his blue Camry is really sharp....great looking 17 inch alloys....
I went and looked at it, and it does look much better in the blue color. I think I failed to mention this; I like the interiors very much, it's the exterior that initially put me off. I'll warm up to it though, I'm sure. I really didn't like the rear of the Accords, now I kinda like it!
The rear of the Accord for 2006 is ugly. I also think they would have been better off putting on the tailights from the hybrid. (I really like the 2003-2005 versions the best), but will probably purchase an LE Camry since the Lexus-like styling looks awesome and better than BMW's 3 or 5 series. The only minor complaint is the grille, but no vehicle is perfect.
I actually left out some words... I should have said some people say the rear of the car is ugly, I thought like you did, but now I have changed. (I still think that the tailights should have been the one from the Hybrid Accord. I had the same thoughts about the front grill and the sombrero on the new Camry.
The one on the right is a very popular car (the 1994 -1997 model). I actually go back and forth with Accord and Camry. I planned on changing my 2004 Accord sedan with the 2006, but then I saw the new Camry, and its a tough call. 2008 is a long time to wait for the new, Accord.
thegrad, the 94-97 is actually my favorite generation of Accord. The size was just perfect in my opinion, and the car was so cohesive as an effort. Go figure that because it was smaller than the Camrys of the time (and the 3G Camry was particularly kick-[non-permissible content removed]), the 94-97 had the Accord fall off the Ten Best list, not win many comparos, etc.
A friend of mine had a 94 Accord EX 4 that was going strong at 160K before she ran a stop sign and was RAILED on the passenger side. No injuries (but she wasnt carrying a passenger). Still, the 1994 Accord was one of the first vehicles to meet 1997 Side Impact Standards...
Someone at my office told me he'd buy the car today for $3,500. (A few weeks ago). It's not going anywhere anytime soon. It has 159,000 miles on it, and needs the rotors turned as well as new shocks (I'm still on the originals), but that offer was over blue book private party value in the "good" condition. I'll keep driving it to school every day (more wrecks happen in rush hour-when i drive) and I'll drive the new one all the other times. I'm not letting go of it, smile!
What do you guys think of pouring $500 into a 1994 Honda Accord with 156,500 miles on it? It needs a new left front bearing and hub. I've put approximately $1,600 into the car in the past year or so, but I'm getting tired of spending good money to keep a 12+ year old car on the road. Nothing else seems to be wrong with the car (I should know, big $$$ was spent getting it into shape to get Maryland inspection).
I've been seriously considering a new car for a few years, and am extremely partial to the new 2007 Camry. Personally, I think it's time to get a new car (as I've owned the current one for 10+ years).
Comments
Don't be so quick to dump the Altima. They are nice looking and supposedly reliable.
There is NO Way I could trade it in and get anything for it...
LOL....I'd better off giving it away. :P
That cars has been everywhere..New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Atlanta, Charlotte, all major cities of the South.
It's been good to me. I have had no major problems per se. I just wanted the Accord a little more from the beginning. I just didn't like the back design at the time of my purchase...
If the 04 Accord would have had the back end of the 06, I would have bought it from the beginning...
~alpha
Being an engineering manager, I can say that opening up the hood of the Accord and you find wires, hoses, ducts, plastic parts and what nots... running all over the engine bay in random fashion, whereas the Camry's engine bay is laid out very neatly and logically.
I requested you offer some specifics about the relevancy of your experience. I worked as an engineer in the R&D group of a molder of plastic parts for OEM's and have worked with factory engineers in Ford and GM plants, and my experience directly contradicts your opinion.
Honda products appear to use about twice the fastening hardware therefore must be twice as intensive in their labor content.
The five million dollar MIT study on lean manufacturing didn't measure fastening hardware use. They measured labor content per vehicle. But as you were nice enough to ask, a quick google search gave these 1998 Harbour Report figures.
98 LABOR PRODUCTIVITY COST PENALTY
Labor Hours Per Vehicle
(Assembly, Stamping, Powertrain)
Daimler
Chrysler 44.25; GM 45.60; Ford 34.78; Honda 30.76; Nissan 30.76; Toyota 30.38
No one is twice as bad as Toyota. Honda - and Nissan - are nearly identical to Toyota.
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.
If size alone proved this, we wouldn't be having this discussion - we'd all be driving GM cars.....
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.
In keping with your request to document my contentions, I went to Consumer Reports and found the following Hondas to be part of the list of "...all 1997 through 2004 models that showed better-than-average reliability in our latest survey. "
Hondas included Civic ‘97-98, Accord ’97, Civic ‘99-00, CR-V ‘97, Accord ‘98-99, Civic ’01, CR-V ‘98-99, Odyssey ‘97-98, Prelude ‘97-98, Accord ’00, Civic ’02, CR-V ’00, Insight ‘00, Accord ’01, Civic ’03, CR-V ‘01, Accord ’02, Civic ’04, Odyssey ’00, Prelude ‘01, CR-V ’02, Element ‘03-04, S2000 ‘00, Accord ‘03-04, CR-V ‘03-04, Odyssey ‘0, Odyssey ’04, S2000 ‘01-02, Odyssey ’03, Pilot ‘03-04, S2000 ‘03
"4X larger" Toyota [trucks removed] included Corolla ‘97-99, Echo ‘00, Avalon ’97, Camry ‘97-98, Celica ’97, Corolla ‘00-01, Echo ‘01-02, RAV4 ‘97-99, Avalon ’98, Camry ’99, Camry Solara ’99, Corolla ’02, Echo ’03, Sienna ’98, Avalon ’99, Camry ‘00-01, Celica ‘00, Corolla ‘03, RAV4 ’00, Sienna ’99, Camry Solara ’00, Celica ’01, Corolla ’04, RAV4 ’01, Sienna ’00, Avalon ’00, Camry ’02, Camry Solara ’01, Celica ’02, Matrix ‘03-04, Matrix ’04, RAV4 ’02, Sienna ’01, Avalon ’01, Camry ’03, Camry Solara ’02, Celica ’03, Prius ’01, RAV4 ‘03-04, Sienna ’02, Avalon ’02, Camry ’04, Camry Solara ’03, Highlander ’01, Prius ‘02-03, Avalon ‘03-04, Highlander ‘02-03, Prius ’04, Highlander ’04,
Sure doesn't seem like a big problem in either camp. I'd be equally curious about the average age of Camry owners relative to Accords, it would not surprise me to see an older, more sedate group of drivers.
~alpha
Me..........................Age18 2006 EX 4-dr(Youngest on these boards perhaps???)
Mom.......................Age49 1996 LX 4-dr
Dad........................Age48 2005 EX 4-dr
Grandmother..............Age71 2002 LX 4-dr
Second Cousin .......Age30 1998 EXV6 4-dr
Yeah...we're a "Honda Family". When we have Christmas at our house, it looks like we are shooting a commercial for Honda...we have four Accords, a 97 Civic, an 05 Odyssey, and a CR-V! That's just with grandparents/aunt/cousin!
An I also betcha that I am about 2 1/2 time the age of the average Civic Si driver.
Cheers,
MidCow
camry is just so damn solid; there is nothing out of place; i have never driven a car so well designed and laid out for the money
for sports cars, i have never driven a car as finished as the 06 civic si; for the 20k price you get near BMW fit and finish
both companies are good:
regarding 06 ex v6 6spd:
its ok; probably better than owning an audi; i think the interior is kind dated when compared to the new civics; imo toyota has a better interior when comparing 06s. the stick shift is alright; i prefer the si 6sp w/ the short throw
just some thoughts
I wonder if the extra power will steal sales like some people think it will. When the Accord and Altima came out with 240 horsepower in 2002-03, people (myself included I'm afraid) gawked at the fact that the top engine in the Camry was still just 192 hp. Shoot, the Camry of 1995 had 188 hp, didn't it?
I think what Camry buyers are looking for isn't power. What they need to monitor is the ever rising prices of Toyotas, as I imagine the "16,988 LE" deals going on in Birmingham will be replaced by "$19,988 LEs."
Why just the other day I had to honk twice at a Camry driver. It seems she was so comforatable driving along she had fallen asleep at the wheel.
Chugg'n along in bmy 2.2L 4 cylinder,
MidCow
....seems like a fair statement (wait!! there's more...)
..sure, I bought a Camry (Solara) ...last year of V6/5M...
..when I was looking for a new Camry Solara.....
it was "Sorry, ace.....no can do" (No V-6/manual shift)
..so what do you think I bought? (and yes, it does ride a little rougher than the Camry S....but we all knew that going in, right?)
best, ez..
You mean parked just about everything, don't you?
I think what Camry buyers are looking for isn't power. What they need to monitor is the ever rising prices of Toyotas, as I imagine the "16,988 LE" deals going on in Birmingham will be replaced by "$19,988 LEs." "
I tend to agree. I recently ignored the 2007 Camry in favor of the Accord. In the first place, you can't get a manual in the V6 Camry at any price. This, plus the ability to turn the stability control system off, puts the Accord at a huge advantage when it comes to being driven enthusiastically, regardless of a ten percent horsepower deficit.
Throw in the fact that a comparably equipped 2007 Camry will run near $30K right now as opposed to the EX V6, which I purchased just over a month ago for $25250, or $2500 below MSRP. This isn't five hundred dollars or even a thousand we're talking about, it's closer to four or five thousand dollars. The Accord is too damn good a car to willfully pay close to fifteen percent more for something that's not significantly sportier or more luxurious.
........just much better equipped!
Look a little closer if you are looking at all.
Your postulation about the price of the XLE V6 with Heated Seats, Stability control, floormats, and Satellite radio is wrong to start with. The MSRP of that vehicle is $29,838 and I can buy it all day for $27,429.
So what do you get for $2,179 premium over your Accord:
. A 2007 model, not a 2006
. More HP and torque
. 6 Speed auto transmission
. Auto headlights
. Blue tooth w/steering wheel controls
. Heating/AC steering wheel controls
. 440 Watt stereo that blows away the Honda system
. Homelink
. Electro mirror
. Compass
. Trip Computer
. Reclining rear seats
. Interior air Ionizer
. Manual rear seat sunshade
. Trunk Mat
. Trunk Cargo net
. Tire Pressure Monitoring
. Drivers knee airbag
. Compass
. 2 more mpg city
. 2 more mpg Highway
. Almost 4% More Interior Room
. Almost 4% bigger trunk
and you could save $520 more by not getting the electronic nanny Stabilty Control/Traction Control option.
and if you wanted NAV, it is $800 invoice cheaper than the Honda system.
But the Honda has 4 more cupholders, LED tailights and 17" wheels. Wow!
Now you know what you are missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~alpha
If you are looking for a value priced sedan to really enjoy driving in a spirited manner, buy an Evo, SRT-4, or a WRX/STi.
I say value priced, because the real performers are Volvo S60R, M5, S4/S6 and the like which are $40k++
More mileage to go with the higher power...now there's your best talking point. That's the kind of stuff that induces people to open their wallet and spend a few thousand to save a few hundred. However, as the Accord I purchased has a manual transmission, the mileage difference between the model I bought and a Camry is reduced to one mile per gallon, or less than five percent. I'd also be willing to venture a guess that any advantage the Camry has in power is effectively negated by the presence of a manual transmission in the hands of a reasonably skilled driver.
The rest of the stuff on that list is piffle, at least to this particular shopper. I'm sure my rear seat passengers will suffer just fine through not being able to recline and being forced to breathe unionized air. The window tint I had installed virtually eliminates the need for a self-adjusting mirror (not like adjusting the mirror is a chore worth paying any significant sum to avoid...just like adjusting one's own headlights). I can also continue to suffer through the indignity of having to monitor my own tire pressure as I've done for years (daily on a visual basis, weekly with a gauge and compressor). I religiously avoid using my cell phone when I drive, so Bluetooth is wasted on me. I've got radio controls on one side of the wheel and cruise control on the other, and I hardly feel cheated when I have to reach a bit to adjust the very large, easy to locate climate control knob.
So now I know what I'm missing...but of all the stuff listed, the thing I'd miss the most is the clutch pedal.
Room for four adults was a primary consideration, and no compact meets that requirement like a midsize car. Also, I am 6'4" and fitting in the Legacy and Mitsu was problematic. Then there's the matter of being tasteful. If the choice is between buying a winged wonder or shelling out forty grand, I'd have just kept my ailing Focus and saved for another couple of years.
The final three cars I was considering before I purchased were the Legacy GT, the Altima SE-R and the Accord. If I were ten years younger, I'd probably be driving the Legacy right now, but the smoothness of the Accord's "double six" powertrain was just too good for me to pass on.
The number of manual Accords is very, very low; I've heard figures as low as two percent. It's not the "meat" of the segment, but for those drivers who find themselves shoehorned into this segment out of necessity, it provides an option very much worth exploring. There are not many cars that seat four comfortably and offer sub six-second 0-60 acceleration for around $25000, but the Accord sedan with the six-speed manual is one of them. It may not be a canyon carver, but it's got enough power and suspension to be pretty darn entertaining, especially when mixing it up with the six speed. The powertrain in this car is BUTTER.
Regardless, I am glad you found what makes you happy. I would venture a guess that as you mentioned it being a rare car, less than 1 in 50 are looking for a manual EX V6 sedan, just very few would be looking for upper trim (SE/XLE) V6 Camrys.
The weight difference between the coupe and sedan with the 6MT is only 68 pounds, by the way.
The figure I have most associated with the manual transmission car's production is two percent, so one in fifty would indeed be accurate.
....the good people at Car and Driver were willing to abuse the clutch enough to post that time.
....'box' score: Honda 1 Toyota 0....
..C/D 2/06 shows 5.9 to sixty (plus quartermile at 14.5) for the AV6 6M sedan.
..last summer,my $23.4 + change went to Honda vice Toyota.
...traded the last Toyota with 6 cyl/5M for the AV6 6M coupe......and I've never looked back. Even with VTEC, the fuel efficiency is better with the new car. (And the manual shift Toyota was no slouch in the mileage dept...)
..gearbox folks..very few are out there.....
..ez...
So yes, I'm yet another person that the lack of a V6 + manual combination influenced my descision to buy. Plus I like the looks of the Accord better, and I like the seats better.
I test drove one last night and found it difficult at times to engage 3rd gear.
It gave me a vauge feel when shifting.
Also, it feel like I have to push hard to get it in 3rd & 4th gear, else it wont engage fully and slip out.
What is your feeling on that?
Engagement difficulty is not a Honda trait.
Go out and drive another Honda 6-speed. Something was obviously wrong with the one you test drove!
You apparently had a demo car that someone abused , either accidently or whatever!
I have 2005 6-speed Accord Coupe with 20,000 miles and it stills shifts a smooth as butter. The only thing that I have driven that shifts better is my 2006 6-speed S2000.
I shift,
MidCow
....as another '05 AV6 6M coupe owner......
...I gotta agree with MidCow.....
..it's the clutch that's the rogue (unlike any other)
..but it's a great car.....
best, ez..
The car belonged to the owner of the dealership.
I test drove a '02 s2000 2 weeks before and the difference was like day and night.
Either way I was very concerned and had there tech look at it and they came back saying it's fine.
Too bad it was the perfect model and color with the skirt package and everything else I was looking for (including the right price).
I'm back on the hunt. Thanx for your input
I will also say that color has a lot to do with it as well; I find this generation much more appealing in dark colors. thegraduate, if you havent had a chance, check out the 07 Camry thread for some owner pics- there's a dude on there who just picked up the 07 Camry SE plus NAV, Bluetooth, Leather, VSC, spoiler, remote start, etc... and his blue Camry is really sharp....great looking 17 inch alloys....
~alpha
Sharper than the current Accord, for sure.
Come on, tell me what you REALLY think of my car!
The one on the right is a very popular car (the 1994 -1997 model). I actually go back and forth with Accord and Camry. I planned on changing my 2004 Accord sedan with the 2006, but then I saw the new Camry, and its a tough call. 2008 is a long time to wait for the new, Accord.
A friend of mine had a 94 Accord EX 4 that was going strong at 160K before she ran a stop sign and was RAILED on the passenger side. No injuries (but she wasnt carrying a passenger). Still, the 1994 Accord was one of the first vehicles to meet 1997 Side Impact Standards...
But I digress! Hang on to that Accord!
~alpha
I've been seriously considering a new car for a few years, and am extremely partial to the new 2007 Camry. Personally, I think it's time to get a new car (as I've owned the current one for 10+ years).