Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

blufz1 · February 2007

Honda read your mind. The new 08 accord v6 is a 3.5. They did the same w/ the pilot sized units by enlarging the 3.5 to 3.7. Curious re your 02 v6 experiences because I have one. What kind of city and highway mpg did you get and what were your observations about the car? Thanks.

dolfan1 · February 2007

Please tell us where you got your info. I wasn't aware any specifics (engine size, etc) had been released on the '08.

blufz1 · February 2007

I can't. They will kill me!

thegraduate · February 2007

for every bodys info,2003 v6 6speed coupe runs 0 to 60 in just 5.9sec and 14.5 seconds in quarter mile.and the regular v6 automatic accord is about second slower than 6speed coupe.you can look those number at www.modernracer.com .and remember this is 5 years old accord trim we are talking about.

A current sedan 6-speed Accord runs the same exact speed, my friend, and its numbers were posted in a much more well-known magazine, Car and Driver.

thegraduate · February 2007

Oh "THEY" will? I can't help but wonder who THEY are...:)

dolfan1 · February 2007

I've been thinking about this post & wanted to ask the other current generation Accord drivers to chime in.
10 years ago I bought a '97 Maxima, standard 190hp V6, only had it a couple years but it seemed fairly quick. Haven't checked but assume my old Maxima was similar weight compared to current Accord, which has an increase of 50hp more.

Do you other 6cyl guys & gals consider your cars sluggish as well?

blane · February 2007

dolfan1,

My 2004 Accord V6 EX Coupe is completely responsive and has more power than I could ever need if I put the pedel to the metal. The 2003's through 2007's are the seventh generation Accords. Highly recommended.

elroy5 · February 2007

dolfan1

03 EX V6. It is about as far from sluggish as Pluto is from Mercury. "drive by wire" means immediate response.

thegraduate · February 2007

The Maxima GLE V-6 (loaded model, which should be heaviest) weighed 3,085 lbs in the 1997 model.

The Accord EX-V6, also the loaded model, weighs 3,371 in manual transmission form, and over 3,400 pounds in Automatic form. That's a difference of 300-400 pounds over the 1997 Maxima. Also, torque in the Accord is 211 lb-ft, only 6 more than the old Maxima.

elroy5 · February 2007

The Nissan 4spd auto trans didn't help the quickness (1/4 mile 16.55).

thegraduate · February 2007

Yep. That Maxima is great around town, (interestingly, a friend of mine has a 97 GXE with 180k miles or so that I've driven) with lots of torque, but today's cars will run away from it at higher speeds due to lower hp.

blufz1 · February 2007

Sluggish? Compared to my 160mph motorcycle,well,yeah. But it's just a car. I drive my 02v6 very carefully and have never floored it. I luv the car and plan to keep it a long time.

elroy5 · February 2007

I have no problem flooring my 03 V6. I do it every now and then (once or twice a month on average), when passing/merging. I think if you floor it every day, all day, it will shorten the life expectancy of your engine.

blufz1 · February 2007

I'm sure you are right. I tow a small bass boat and am just trying to be as easy as I can, when I can. My car seems very throttle sensitive. I get better mileage by accelerating slowly.

dolfan1 · February 2007

Thanks, to all, for the responses. Technically mine was a black SE, very sharp and a darn nice vehicle in its day. Traded it in for a '99 Town & Country mivivan of all things! Needed something bigger, since I'm a one car family. Been driving the T & C ever since, and actually its been a fairly decent vehicle (except for a nasty habit of throwing the serpentine belt 4 times),but its getting older.
That's why I'm interested in a new Accord. Still waiting just to see what the '08 will be but leaning towards an '07. At the prices they're going for it seems to good to pass up.

stevehecht · February 2007

th83: I'm not sure what kind of "typical daily driving" you're doing to find the Accord V6's powertrain inadequate, but I'd like to find out. You admit its acceleration is fine for highway driving, so are you weaving in and out of street traffic fending off those annoying GTIs and WRXs?

Yes it would be nice if a 4-year old Gen7 Accord matched the firepower of the new 2007 Camry, but personally I wasn't willing to pay close to the MSRP for the Camry SE V6 ($24,418), which is >$1000 more than the Accord SE V6 ($23,350), especially when the Accord can be had for under invoice these days--so that difference could total ~$4000 (I bought my 2007 Accord SE V6 for $20,500) since Toyota is not offering any incentives these days and Edmunds' TMV is very close to MSRP. I'd be paying up to $4K more for a Camry without VSC, and another $5K for a Camry with VSC (option package D)--and that's a VSC I can't even shut off when I want to! That would put a Camry V6 with VSC over $30K. I got my Accord V6 with on/off VSC for $10K less.

With the VSC on the Camry XLE had a shabby slalom speed with its handling rated by Edmunds as only average (Accord's was good and it's slalom time much better w/o VSC). And I don't want to drive a car (most of the time) without VSC. Am I willing to trade $10,000 and on/off VSC for an extra 24hp and 37 lbs-foot @ <rpm? Easy answer: No way, Jose.

grimey1 · February 2007

Dear members,

I'm in the process of getting online quotes from Honda dealers here in the Houston area. I'm looking for a new 2007 Honda Accord SE 4 cylinder engine. I was quoted from one dealer for $19,200+TTL, fees, (I'm not exactly sure what they mean by fees, maybe destination charge).

I was also told that it would include a free ResistAll exterior/interior sealant (a $695 value, or so they claim) :confuse:

What do you all think?

I greatly appreciate any feedback that I can get!

Thanks,

Josh

stevehecht · February 2007

Great, tell them they can keep the sealant and subtract $700 from the price. Then maybe you'll have a decent deal. Check out the Prices Paid discussion on this website.

stlpike07 · February 2007

I agree. Spend $8 on two cans of scotchguard and do it yourself.

blane · February 2007

Destination Charge is not a fee. It is a non-negotiable freight charge that the manufacturer puts on the invoice for shipment of the vehicle from the plant or port-of-entry to the dealership.

riku · February 2007

I concur. For most people, a 240+ hp V6 mated to a 5 speed slushbox is power aplenty. Do you actually race from stop light to stop light every minute of the day?

As for Car and Driver, they are biased towards BMW and Honda, in that specific order. Something about the way the cars handle and shift with the manual transmissions just turn that staff on. I've owned two Hondas in the past: Integra (Acura = Honda

) and a Honda Prelude. Both shifted very well compared to Nissan/VW models and they handled quite well. The Prelude's handling was especially laudable. While Toyotas (Lexus'es) score every high in comfort and ergonomics, they often get dogged because of floaty handling, etc. Just face it, C&D just drinks the BMW/Honda kool-aid too much.

pat · February 2007

You don't want to agree to anything that includes undefined "fees". Much of the time you'll find they add $500 or more to the price. Hop over to the Accord Prices Paid & Buying Experience discussion for more information and advice - good luck!!

ahsanman99 · February 2007

I agree with you,i have owned about ten honda accords from 1987 to 2003 and they are the best cars on planet.they shift smooth with good handling.and i abuse them to max even without any engine oil.currently i am driving a 89 honda accord with 366000 mile on it and car runs perfect and does not have any issues,it has orignal motor and tranny.and i own 94 accord with 253k miles on it and i race that car every day.

stlpike07 · February 2007

First of all, I find it very hard to believe both vehs have that many miles and the original engine and tranny. If you drive a vehicle without any engine oil you're asking for problems. I don't believe that either.

You think honda is better and I think Toyota is better.....AND, we are both right because we are entitled to our own opinions.

I test drove a few different '07 Accords (along with some GM cars) and decided to purchase an '07 Camry. Toyota rocks!

tallman1 · February 2007

I don't doubt the mileage at all. My '95 Accord has over 220k miles with no engine or transmission work.

I think the original poster was referring to not burning any oil. Of course, no one is driving a car without any oil at all.

thegraduate · February 2007

Having seen firsthand three high-mileage (over 170k) Hondas with original automatic transmissions, I don't doubt it either.

1987 Civic Wagon - 255k miles before selling (My Grandfather's).
1988 Honda Accord DX - 283k miles and still going (A family friend).
1996 Honda Accord LX - 171k miles and I drive it almost daily.

stlpike07 · February 2007

Ok.......well, 366,000 miles seems like A LOT of miles. And that would mean the car is only worth around $100. But hey, it works for him.

I used to own a '92 Camry and sold it with 190,000 miles. It may have had the original engine and tranny, but it sank a lot of money into it fixing things.

I would just be worried about the car's safety being that old and with that much "abuse." I'm not sure I would feel safe driving with him.

thegraduate · February 2007

It seems like a lot of miles because it IS a lot of miles, while I don't think I'll be "racing" any car/engine with 250k miles on it (I try to keep it below 4,500 RPM in my 1996 with 171k!). I wouldn't expect such an old engine to last long with that much abuse, however. I don't understand why someone would intentionally abuse a car; it will only end up costing the owner more money.

dolfan1 · February 2007

Before people decide what rocks and what doesn't, requires waiting on '08 Accord. Comparing the '07 Camry with current generation Accords isn't really fair.

gooddeal2 · February 2007

I used to own a '92 Camry and sold it with 190,000 miles. It may have had the original engine and tranny, but it sank a lot of money into it fixing things.

Grad to see some honest opinions here. :sick:

All of my families and closed friend always have some problems w/ their cars whether theyre Hondas, Toyotas or Nissans. I hate to see when people say My car is 200K miles and all I need to do is oil change. A quick example is most cars, may be not all, at or around 100K miles will fail the emission test, need new radiators...

Yesterday, my uncle just traded in his 97 Camry w/ 93K miles for a new SiennaWhy? Well, last summer on his way back home, his car died on the PA Turnpike, he spend about 200$ for towing (w/ AAA discount), and another $200 for repairs + the whole families slept in the car in front of the repair shop. :mad:

During Nov., his lighting system is gonespend another $240 to replace some sensor at a cheap place.

Last month? The car could not pass the inspection cuz of the exhaust. He did not have it repaired at the dealer cuz they wanted around $500. He took it to the small shop again and the guy got an old part from somewhere and tried to reshape it to fit his car (spend $100)good deal? I dont think so10 days ago he got the engine light (more likely b/c of the exhaust)and thats when he decided to let it go.

tallman1 · February 2007

I've got to say that I'm not aware of any people posting on the Honda boards saying "My car is 200K miles and all I need to do is oil change. I can't speak for the others.

I do know that I've replaced a few things in my '95 Accord but haven't had any problems with the engine or transmission. I've also never failed an emission test in my state after 220k. It's due next month so I'll keep you posted if I have any problems.

The reality is that even with the repairs I've made, it was far cheaper than buying a new car. Of course, I love my new Accord... and my son loves getting my old one.

thegraduate · February 2007

I beg to differ. With an Accord, you get a great car at a much lower price. With the Camry, you'll get more features and a newer design, at a higher price. It's fair to both sides in my eyes.

elroy5 · February 2007

I can't say that my old Accord (92) didn't need any repairs in 12 years, and 140k miles. I spent about $1,000 at the most. The transmission computer was the biggest ($450). The others were A/C switch and A/C recharge ($250), valve cover gasket ($20), oil pan gasket ($20), two A/C temp control knobs ($20) and a fuel pump ($120). I changed all of these parts myself, so I paid no labor.

But really, the repair costs were not the only reason I bought another Accord. I just liked the way it drove, and everything worked like it was supposed to. The car could have gone at least another 100k miles easy. The check engine light never came on, the entire time. You hear a lot of people who own Accords say "I love my Accord", and I know why. My new Accord (03) has been the same way, only better.

ahsanman99 · February 2007

that is the fun of V-tech motor.It can take abuse forever.redlining the v-tech motor is not a big deal.any ways every body go to www.hondabeat.com and click on "high mileage club" on the left side of the page.and you can read all these amazing stories of high miles.we have couple hondas and acuras in my town that have more than half million miles.if any one did not drive a S2000 yet,you are missing out.its the craziest naturally aspirated and fastest four banger on the planet.it makes 120hp/liter which is a lot more than a ferrari.and s2000 have 9000rpm redline too.

gooddeal2 · February 2007

That's I believe you...but look at this statement:

:confuse: currently i am driving a 89 honda accord with 366000 mile on it and car runs perfect and does not have any issues,it has orignal motor and tranny :confuse:

thegraduate · February 2007

That 1989 is not a VTEC, and well, an engine with 18 year old parts needs to be driven a little lighter than one with 8 year old parts, just my opinion. Trust me, I love revving my 06 Accord up often, but my 96 I tend not to rev unless I have to - just to be easy on it and keep it running as long as possible.

thegraduate · February 2007

That's I believe you...but look at this statement:

currently i am driving a 89 honda accord with 366000 mile on it and car runs perfect and does not have any issues,it has orignal motor and tranny

He didn't say that he hadn't done repairs on it before though, right? If it ran 366,000 miles without any repairs, I'd cry foul, but I believe that with repairs, that car probably does run great.

dolfan1 · February 2007

That's true in terms of the entire picture. I was referring to technology vs technology, & features vs features, my fault for not being more clear.
Considering the Accord holds its own in different comparison tests now, it's probably a no-brainer the '08 will likely surpass them all.

serenity185 · February 2007

Hello! I've been lurking around for a while and have read a lot about the comparisons made between these two cars, but one thing I don't remember coming across is how well these cars do in the snow. Does anyone know if the Accord or Camry differ in how well they handle snow, because that would be an important factor in choosing one over the other. I plan to buy in the spring, so it'd be a while before the vehicle sees snow.

I'm leaning toward the Accord LX 4 cylinder model because of its sportier styling, handling, and interior, but I'm a little worried about some of the transmission issues I've read about. I know this message board represents a very small portion of Accord/Camry owners, but I noticed that brakes and transmission of the '03 Accord got a half black mark in Consumer Reports while the '03 Camry got better marks and a slightly better reliability rating. I just don't want to worry about any expensive repairs since buying either car used isn't exactly the best deal since they retain their value so well. However, I've read nothing but great things about either, so to me it'd be worth the money. Perhaps I should buy a warranty?

Also, I've read the Accord's ride is firmer than the Camry's, but is it still relatively comfortable and somewhat supple? As long as the ride is considerably better than a car like the Dodge Neon I'm coming out of, I'd be happy. Obviously this is something I'd test out when test-driving the vehicle, but I'm still curious, I guess. :P

Thanks in advance for any advice! I'm a bit new to this.

dudleyr · February 2007

These cars are about equel in the snow. The biggest factor is the tires. If snow is a concern buy 4 snow tires and you won't have a problem.

blufz1 · February 2007

Not telling you what to do but why buy a warranty on a Honda? I agree w/ your observation re a used one being so expensive. I prefer the buy new and drive it forever theory. Just my .02.

thegraduate · February 2007

I'm leaning toward the Accord LX 4 cylinder model because of its sportier styling, handling, and interior, but I'm a little worried about some of the transmission issues I've read about.

The Accord's transmission troubles were mainly limited to early V6 models. I haven't heard ONE report of transmission problems from the I4, but have read multiple ones about the 2003 and 2004 V6s.

. I know this message board represents a very small portion of Accord/Camry owners, but I noticed that brakes and transmission of the '03 Accord got a half black mark in Consumer Reports while the '03 Camry got better marks and a slightly better reliability rating. I just don't want to worry about any expensive repairs since buying either car used isn't exactly the best deal since they retain their value so well.

The brake pads put on at the factory were recalled I believe. There shouldn't be an existing problem with new pads (which a 2003 model would like have by now). The system wasn't dangerous or anything, it just had low pad life with a noise problem. Nothing that would get you into trouble.

I'm not making excuses for Honda, as they did have teething problems in 2003, but they were not major, and have been addressed by now.

My grandfather's sister has a 2006 Camry (similar to the 2003 in most ways)... very nice car, quiet and smooth. As exciting as watching C-SPAN, but she's 76 and doesn't want a race car. For smoothness and quietness, it can't be beat at the price point.

I have a 2006 Accord (which is basically the same car as your 2003 Accord you are shopping)... again, very nice car, more pep than Camry, not as quiet, and firmer riding. Not a BMW M5, but a lot more fun than that generation Camry.

I hope this helps at least a little bit, and welcome to the forum!

bodybuiltbrock · March 2007

My car is covered by the warranty, but has never had a problem after 77,000 miles! One dashboard rattle is basically all I have to complain about. Not so much a dashboard rattle as something coming from the door. Doesn't do it with my arm resting on the window-pane thing though (next to the lock tab). I would definitely consider buying another Accord - the Camry just seems too "old" of a car, despite being a new design.

jptpa · April 2007

I actually just bought a Camry after looking at the accord. I got the Camry cheaper than I could the accord. Can you get an Accord for 20K OTD?

thegraduate · April 2007

You can get an Accord for much less than that OTD, depending on your taxes. I'd like to see a price breakdown of your Camry!

bryan200k · April 2007

We compared similarly equiped Camrys and Accords before we bought the Accord for over $1,300 less than the Camry with the same features (that mattered to us). The Toyota dealership was one of these "here is the price - no dickering - take it or leave it" type of places. We left.

dudleyr · April 2007

You can get Camrys at invoice now. It really depends on the featurs you want as to how the price works.

You can't get bluetooth, 5 star side crash ratings, knee airbags, tire pressure monitor, traction control or stability control on any 4 cyl Accord.

I wound up with an Accord (for well under $20k out the door), but if Toyota had made a Camry LE with a stick shift and no sunroof, then I probably would have bought that. If I could have had the same with bluetooth stability and alloys, then I definately would have bought the camry.

Unfortunately after checking dozens of deals and thousands of vehicles, none are available.

BTW - if Honda made an SEL (SE with leather - or EXL without a sunroof) that had stability control, then Honda would have won no question. I imagine they will cath up to Toyota later this year.

I decided not to wait because I figured that weight would go up and real world mpg and headroom would go down with the new model.

thegraduate · April 2007

I decided not to wait because I figured that weight would go up and real world mpg and headroom would go down with the new model.

I don't imagine they'd LOSE economy on the new Accord. Its horsepower is already competitive, so they can use A-VTEC to their advantage an increase economy in the next one. Weight went up last time (2003) while economy also jumped as much as 4 MPG depending on model.

dudleyr · April 2007

I don't trust them on mpg. They went on and on about how much more efficinet the new engine was in the last Civic redesign, and it actually got worse EPA and real life mpg for the stick shift.

They may add a gear to the automatic to help mpg, but I am only interested in the 4-cyl stick shift.

I should have also added that cost is another reason I did not wait. $3,000 off of sticker is not going to happen with the new Accord, and they will probably increase the price by about $500 or maybe a little more.

mcdawgg · April 2007

"but if Toyota had made a Camry LE with a stick shift and no sunroof, then I probably would have bought that"

They are rare, but available. I have seen them.

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles