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
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).