Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Camry
pros--
* smooth ride
* comfortable front seats
* adequate mountain climbing power for a 4-cylinder
* very quiet inside
* looks elegant (although ugly)
* large opening through trunk into rear seats
* strong headlights
* instantly effective smooth brakes
cons--
* occasionally hesitated during acceleration attempts for a few seconds
* can’t see right front corner of car due to hood shape
* weak air conditioner
* occasionally suddenly wanders to side at highway speeds
* outside temperature gauge inaccurate
* steering wheel oscillates "rotationally" over bumps (like a Farmall), a slight minor lessening of control
* disappointing gas mileage, 22 mpg in the city with a 4-cylinder driving very conservatively
* large front window posts, hiding an entire fairly close car on the right side
* loosey-goosey steering
* low quality radio
* dash panel suddenly changes intensity, some annoying automatic thing
* hoaky-looking dash
* looks ugly (although elegant)
* motor not as smooth-sounding as old Toyota engines sound
* poor rear visibility
* manual says to go to dealer to keep from beeping when remotely opening doors
* single-CD player
* front head rest pushes head forward very uncomfortably
* front doors swing so far open it’s hard to reach them to close
* infrequently took a few tries to start motor
* infrequent rattle somewhere near front passenger’s seat
Accord
pros--
* handles well, easy to drive and park
* nice looking dash
* good rear visibility
* smooth, powerful engine with good torque feel at all speeds
* tighter, safer steering control
* nice sounding radio
* 6-CD player
* nice looking (but plain looking)
cons--
* uncomfortable front seats
* wider turning circle
* brakes slightly less responsive
* seats and some interior kind of cheap looking
* small opening through trunk into rear seats
* plain looking (but nice looking)
* a little rough ride, but made that way on purpose
Hope this helps. The Accord's a great car so far. I'm not rich and would only trade off a fairly new car and lose a ton of money if it seemed necessary.
Aaron.
The Corolla has VVt-i, which is Toyota speak for Variable Valve Timing, too. When the Corolla came out in late 2002, it was faster than its compeitors (Civic included), with a 0-60 time under 8 seconds. Back then it had about 15 more horsepower than a Civic LX. Keep in mind, this is the fifth year of the Corolla, and like the 2005 Civic, it is due for a revamp.
Keep in mind the Corolla is the longest running nameplate in American car sales history (over 40 years I think), and the Corolla is known for reliability because of its continuing track record for being reliable. Many MANY people put hundreds of thousands of miles on their Corollas, many driving them over 20 years.
I'm not a Corolla fan, I personally find the driving position all wrong for me (but I'm an abnormally tall guy to be driving a compact). I CAN say, from much experience driving a 2004 Corolla LE, that they aren't really any slower than a Civic ( .2 seconds to 60 MPH is not a difference most buyers would EVER notice, and it is still under 8 seconds to 60 MPH, which is darn quick considering it often gets well over 40 MPG), and most people have found they will run until doomsday.
camry and corolla are cheap junky crap
That's an awfully broad, useless statement. Care to elaborate on how they are cheap, junk, and crap? What parts of the vehicles make you say this?
That would have been true on your 2003 model (which had 16" wheels just like the 4-cyl), but now, the V6s ride rougher because of their lower-profile tires with larger 17 inch wheels.
On dolfan's question; the road noise on the Accord is not excessive, although it is not quietest in class. Go drive it, and see how it suits you.
By the way, the old Toyota Corolla XR-S sedan runs 0-60 in 7.1* seconds, on regular gas, and gets 26/34 MPG (an Si takes Premium and gets 22/31, I believe). Not bad considering it is a soon-to-be-replaced five year old design, down about 30 horsepower to the Civic Si. (*MotorTrend.com) .4 seconds is the difference between quick and "slow as hell?" I disagree.
I won't argue that an audio upgrade should be offered on, say EX models. But, the VP stereo and EX V6 6-speed have very different sound systems. Last I checked, this is how things were in Accords as far as stereos go:
Accord VP - 2 Speaker CD Stereo
Accord LX - 120 Watt 6 Speaker CD Stereo
Accord LX-SE, EX, EX-L, and all Automatic V6 models - 120 Watt 6 Speaker 6-CD Changer
Accord EX-V6 6-Speed Manual - 180 Watt 6-Speaker 6-CD Changer
The VP has only the most basic components, and requires the buyer to purchase rear speakers (they are wired for adding speakers, so its easy and cheap to do).
More power (like the 200 watt Pioneer stereo I have installed in my 1996 Accord LX w/ only 4-speakers) allows the volume to be left lower while still experiencing clearer highs and a more powerful bass. Our Odyssey always sounded "tinny" unless you turned the treble WAY down, which then left CDs sounding like AM radio.
My 1996 Accord still has the best stereo in my house, and this is up against dad's new 2007 Civic EX (160 watts, 6 speakers)and my 2006 EX Accord (120 watts, 6-speakers).
I have also been following the rpm flare issue and even though we tentatively decided on an 07 XLE V6 we have delayed the actual purchase.
I am not yet convinced that Toyota has solved the rpm flare issue. I've also been following the same topic in an ES350 forum where the steps involved in swapping a transmission have been posted. I do not want to put myself in a position where any of the local Toyota dealers may possibly need to perform that kind of work on my new car. Our current Camry has not been treated very well by any of the 3 local Toyota dealer service departments.
My main concern with the Camry however has more to do with Toyota in general. I sense the same attitude of indifference towards customers, which prevailed in GM for many years, may also be developing within Toyota.
We will make a car buying decision over the next week or two and it will most likely be an Accord EX-L V6.
I'm a bit off topic though, so I'll hush now.
Finding good techs, who actually know how to diagnose a problem, can be tough. My Honda dealer is nothing to write home about. But I have driven Accords since 91, and they have not spent much time at the dealer. If there were another Honda dealer within 65miles, I would definitely try them out. Good luck in your quest.
Routine repairs become more expensive when it is then necessary to take the car to a body shop for repairing the damage inflicted by either inconsiderate mechanics and / or car jockeys. At least there is consistency with the local Toyota dealers as they have all managed to alter the appearance of my car.
I am now extremely hesitant to take my Camry to any of the local dealers for servicing because of these past events. The thought of potentially leaving a brand new car with any of them for transmission repairs is a level of stress I don't want to deal with.
I always liked the Accord's styling, and still do. However, we are now in the last year of this body style. Knowing myself, I knew that when the 2008 Accord came out, I'd be forced to try to convince myself that the last gen body style I owned was nicer or just as good. And I also knew that deep down, I'd want the new one, but I couldn't afford it.
My main problem with the Accord was the interior. I had a very hard time getting comfortable in the Accord as opposed to the Camry, which felt natural to me from the get go. I'm a tall thin guy and even with teh seat all the way back, the knee bend angle on the Accord was bothersome. And the steering wheel had relatively little clearance over my knees.
In terms of ergonomics, I can't argue with the outstanding build quality and placement, but I felt the Camry interior looked a lot "fresher," particularly the gauges (speedo, etc). In terms of features, the Camry offered a few things that the Accord did not, namely bluetooth and a stereo system that was so far superior to the Accords they weren't even in the same league. I spend a LOT of time in my car so the stereo system is reasonably important to me.
I liked the handling of the Accord plenty, but I did find the ride a little rough. I'm 26 so its not like I'm looking for a Buick, but to my surprise I did not find the Camry "floaty" at all.
As I said, I spent a lot of time with the Accord, and was literally about ready to buy one. I decided to leave the dealership with my wife to talk things over and eat lunch, and on our way I said "what the hell, lets stop at Fitzgerald Toyota." Well, we never went back to the Honda dealer. The Camry looks great (yes, that's a matter of taste, but I thoroughly reject the claim that its ugly), felt great, and has a lot of room and features.
My Camry is now 6 months and 11,900 miles old. I have no rattles, no shakes, nothing. I'm sure the same would have been true for the Accord. And yes, because its the Hybrid I get 36-40 mpg.
I think there is a bit of a smear campaign going on with the new Camry in terms of hesitation and transmission. Both those issues have clear mechanical explanations, and they've been fixed. Hesitation is due to the adapative programming in the transmission, its an easy reprogram fix and its fine if it becomes an issue and the vehicles being sold now are fine.
Now, with the hybrid and the CVT, I haven't had any of these problems, so I definitely encourage people to consider that model. For the same price as an XLE V6, you can have a loaded Hybrid with leather, nav, etc. I chose to just get a sunroof and paid about what I would have for an LE V6. I still get a fast car (7.3-7.7 seconds to 60), all those great features and great fuel economy. Honda simply doesn't offer that.
A few points(and certainly not an attempt to smear Toyota)
(1)I read quite a bit of the Lexus 300/330 thread because I was on the verge of buying a used Lexus. I drove a 2004 330 with 11,000 miles and a 2003 with 40,000 miles. On the 2004 I definitely felt hesitation and was quite surprised. On the 2003 I noticed rpm flare. I drove both care before I started going thru' the thread in edmunds. Agree that there might be some questionable posts in the thread but the size of the thread is staggering to say the least and even more staggering to me is that Toyota owners have been reporting problems from 2002 models onwards. It came as quite a shock to me that a company of the caliber of Toyota can have an engineering problem for more than 5 years.
(2)Many many people have reported that the reprogramming is anything but easy. Toyota has come out with multiple "fixes" and none have really worked. If it really were that easy Toyota would have patched and fixed the problem long time ago. There were many folks that said(and I have to admit the argument is convincing) Toyota really screwed up with this entire adaptive programming concept and really has done a bad job 'fessing up.
(3)Yesterday I read an article on moneycentral.com(maybe Jim Jubak but don't quote me on that) which said that Toyota is having so many quality problems that Japanese politicians have demanded an inquiry. I have not done any independent fact checking of the columnist's statement so please take his(and mine) statemenet with a pinch of salt.
(4)The Lexus is a fine car but over the years I do like others believe that it looks more and more like a Camry(from the ext) which is great for Camry owners but not so much for Lexus owners.
Good to know you are enjoying your car because ultimately thats what matters!
*
Honda ?
**
Or Toyota?
***
Nissan?
****
Or Volkswagen Passat?
****
*
*
NO !
*
*
Wake up.
*
*
Saturn AURA.
*
*
Yes. It's Saturn Aura. The new midsize sedan from Saturn. It beats Camry, Accord, Passat & Altima included -- to be the NA Car of the Year 2007.
*
*
Read more here.
----
The Aura isn't exactly cheap, you can't negotiate prices down on a Saturn and there's no economical 4-cylinder engine options on it.
Sounds like you are looking for our Saturn Aura discussion. See you there!
Best car in its class is very VERY subjective (as evidenced by the millions of sales of cars OTHER than Accord). The Accord is the best car for you, and for me, but not for the person who wants the biggest trunk, or the softest ride, or the newest electronic features, etc... Car and Driver obviously shares similar values to you and I (Accord folks).
Also, the Accord is a 5-year old design at this point.
My point was only that everyone has a personal opinion about "best-in-class," although it appears that the Accord takes home the awards in the enthusiast magazines more often than its competitors. (The V6 Accord has won the last two comparisons against Camry, Fusion, and Sonata done back in 2006, and more recently the I4 model has won the 6-car comparo, just for those who didn't know).
The Camry hasn't been on the Ten-Best list since...um... a little help here?
I test drove a couple accords, the accord coupe, the new civic and a few other cars before I purchased my new Camry. I liked the Camry better than the Accord. Obviously people will like the accord better.......I am happy with the Camry.
It is more comfortable and I like the ride better. (In my opinion)
The front end looks similar to some volvo and jaguar concepts I've seen. I guess we'll see how it actually looks, or if it will look exactly like the pictures.
But yes I can see how its tempting to get the latest/greatest.
I got a 2006, after the mid-cycle change. I got a fresh looking vehicle, but without the first-year troubles.
While I like the Civic I was dissapointed at the reduction of mpg in the newest model (for the manual) despite all the claims about how the engine was more efficient. The taller geared automatic did get slightly better mpg.
And Car and Driver has been even unkinder to Toyota's trucks and SUVs. A definit bias.
And Car and Driver has been even unkinder to Toyota's trucks and SUVs. A definit bias.
Yeah, that's generally because Toyota's are as reliable as our 25 year old refridgerator, and about as exciting to use as well. Car and Driver is not biased against Toyota, just against boring-to-drive cars. Toyota gets kudos for having a better ride, but loses points in handling and in fun-to-drive sportiness, that Honda seems to provide more readily.
If you'll notice, either C & D or Motor Trend (I subscribe to both, and they are pretty similar in their ratings) put the Camry in the top spot of under $30k Family Sporty Sedans (against Malibu SS, Galant Ralliart, and an Altima 3.5 Sport Model whose official trim level escapes me at the moment) - due to the new Camry SE V6 model that added some much needed spice to the Camry lineup that had been missing.
Now, all they are lacking is a manual transmission, and a defeatable VSC system!
1997, the first year of the 4th-generation. Also, I think it was only the V6 models that made the list and not the grossly underpowered 4-banger models.
"If you'll notice, either C & D or Motor Trend (I subscribe to both, and they are pretty similar in their ratings) put the Camry in the top spot of under $30k Family Sporty Sedans (against Malibu SS, Galant Ralliart, and an Altima 3.5 Sport Model whose official trim level escapes me at the moment) - due to the new Camry SE V6 model that added some much needed spice to the Camry lineup that had been missing."
Motor Trend tested the new Camry SE V6 against the Galant Ralliart, Chevy Malibu SS, and Altima SE-R. All were automatics, even though the Altima SE-R is available with a 6-speed (a friend of mine has one, and it's a BEAST compared to my Accord). The Camry won because it offered the best total package (performance, refinement, comfort, value, etc.) of the bunch. IIRC, the Camry was also the fastest of the quartet with a 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds and quarter-mile ET of 14.6.
I'm glad they didn't include an Accord in that test. It would've been smoked by all but the (relatively) sluggish Malibu SS.
I like my 07 Accord V6 and all, but I have to admit it's far from swift, at least in typical daily driving where low-end and mid-range torque is crucial. Its little 3.0 just doesn't have enough grunt to move its mass around with ease at part-throttle. And though I haven't driven it yet, I'm sure the new Camry with its torquey V6 is much quicker on its feet than my AV6 (that's short for Accord V6, for those who don't know). I wish Honda would realize the importance of torque, not peak HP, in a family sedan. High peak HP is great for lightweight sports cars with close-ratio manual transmissions (like the S2000), but less than ideal for a hefty family sedan with an automatic tranny. Because of its high-end biased powerplant, the only time the Accord really shines in terms of acceleration is on the highway. There, it will rip to 100 mph and beyond (it's limited to 130) with absolute ease. But what good is that to the people who drive in this country, where the speed limits are 55-65 mph?
Though my 07 Accord V6 is a huge improvement over my extremely sluggish 2002 Accord V6, it's still severely lacking in the low-end torque department. I wish I could've gotten an automatic Altima SE-R instead, mainly for its superior powertrain. Unfortunately, it was out of my price range and didn't even come standard with traction control or side curtain airbags, much less VSA (which wasn't even available), inexcusable for a $30k car. It did have HIDs, BOSE stereo, 18" wheels, and a few other convenience features the Accord lacks, but those weren't enough to justify the extra $3.5k+ a loaded SE-R costs over an Accord EX-L V6.
Ah, well. Maybe when it's time to trade in my 07, the 8th generation Accord will have everything I want in a car (torquey V6 engine, HIDs, sportier handling, better stereo...).