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
So you will be spending around 36000 for Solara.
That is very good decesion.
U know what ? TRD's Solara is a joke !! It costs 9K over already 25K+ Solara....!!
U might as well get a 328 for that price !!
Good luck....
Thanks anyway....u will invite many replies to ur post....
You two appear to know the most about the repsective companies.
Could you fill me in on how a Honda/Toyota manufactured in Japan gets to the US market.
Specifically, the Japanese manufacturing plant produces the car and it rolls out of the back of the factory.
From there is it sold to an affiliate for distribution outside Japan or exported directly from the factory into the US.
I was recently at a tax seminar that discussed certain Japanese companies that have their manufacturing plant sell to an affiliate at a profit. The affiliate sells to a US importer.
The issue is that the affiliate declares a sales price for custom duties that includes the affiliates profit.
The Japanese firms are not doing this intentionally it just occurs because you need to understand custom duties.
Genrally for custom duties the Independent factory Price (IFP) is what custom duties should be paid on and not the higher price that the affiliate sells its product to the US.
Just curious what your thoughts were.
I know for sure that the South East region distributor is an private affiliate. They often gets the Toyota off the ship, adds some port options or after market things (windows etching, bug deflectors, ect) to the Toyotas, and then they sell it to the individual Toyota dealers at a slight premium. That's why SE toyotas sells at a slightly higher price than the other regions.
Most of the other region, the distributor may simply be Toyota owned, because the cars tend to arrive with nothing extra, and cost the same as the price Toyota motor corp declared. But I'm not too clear on tarrif and other tax details.
I hope my limited knowledge was of help.
Thanks for the info.
Wish I had those problems.
The UK has challenged the program and it has been ruled as an unfair subsidy for US businesses. New FSC legislation has been enacted. I will not bore anyone with the counterclaim of unfair subsidies for airbus.
I was not trying to get into anti-corporate or government rhetoric merely pointing out that in the case of custom duties the cost is passed on immediately to the consumer. Very similar to say a car dealer charging the incorrect sales tax rate on your car, he is indifferent to the cost because you pay it. Taxes assessed on value are shall we say non-value added to the product and thus should be minimized within the bounds of the law.
Offshore companies, tax havens, transfer-pricing issues are a different animal and probably way off any of the Edmund’s topics.
I bought 97 Accord EX 2dr Coupe a year ago, and I absolutely abhor the seats. I am in pain from my neck down to my hips. I heard this has been an on-going issue with people usually over 175 lbs in certain Hondas.
I did not notice the problem during the test drive, but only a few days later the problems developed. They now begin within seconds of sitting down in the car. I now need to see a chiropractor to get things back in-line.
I love everything else about my car but it has gotten to the point where I will have to sell it. I want another Accord or Camry but don't want to make another $20,000 mistake. I am going to take a bath on this one with only 1 year paid into it.
Anyone had similar problems or advice?
Rob.
If you live in the midwest, send me an email and I will help you find a pain clinic.
Rather than taking a beating by trading the accord-suggest getting a replacement sear-lots of them out there-and are conversion rails-keep the seat when you sell the car.
Good luck
Kudos to both Honda and Toyota for selling them, and kudos to any other manufacturer who follows suit -- and it appears they all will, by necessity.
Thanks
Leo
You won't need the last few hp, as the engine is more than powerful enough as it is.
BTW, was your VW squareback ever nearly squashed by a 1973 Cadillac Fleetwood running a red light? Fifteen years from now, SUVs like the Toyota Land Cruiser will be gas-guzzling ghettomobiles. Sorry, I'm drifting off-topic.
I liked both but the Accord was much cheaper.
I drive the Accord almost 70 miles a day and have close to 30k on it. No problems. Mileage is great.. the car is extremely comfortable and I am a large person (300 lfs). My only complaints are road noise; the insulation is poor and the sound system is wheezy. I'll drive this vehicle as long as I can.
BTW.. I let the dealer service it. They are always having specials and it is cheaper then QLube plus I don't have to worry about proving maintenance work if there is a problem.
Toyota's juggling of options is less than ideal. Can you find the exact car you want or do you have to order it? I know whenever I buy a Honda, I go straight for the EX and add dealer options as necessary. Keeps pricing easier too.
I didn't buy the Accord just because of price. The price simply confirmed my decision. I also can't get it out of my head that the Solara is a woman's car...it just has this feminine style about it.
Leo
Engine MT AT
4-cyl 26/32 23/30
6-cyl NA 20/28
If you look at the table above, you'll see that highway mileage figures are in a fairly close range. Automatics will lose to the manuals because they lack that last overdrive gear. But engine size isn't as huge a factor as you might expect. I think the Corvette gets 26 on the highway...this is because highway driving is mostly about maintaining speed, which is a fuel efficient activity.
City mileage, OTOH, is where small and efficient makes a big difference. The 4-cyl/manual has a very good 26mpg rating, but the 6-cyl/auto consumes 30% more gas per mile with a rating of 20mpg. I have the 4-cyl/manual and have gotten 23mpg in mostly suburban non-highway driving. Traffic isn't horrible, but I use the throttle with good aggression. My engine only has 1100 miles on it, so mileage will improve.
Honda uses regular fine without any pinging.
I get about 24-25 mpg on mostly freeway driving with about 25% in heavy traffic. On freeway without traffic, I get 27 mpg.
Bob C
The accord v6 torque output is lacking at low rpms starting around 140lbft. Accord city/hwy is 20/28 mpg.
BTW the GM3.8v6 found in chev impala, buick regal, grand prix, intrigue has substantially more than 200lbft torque throughout all rpms AND has better fuel economy than both with city/hwy at 20/30 mpg.
This research bothers me as an accord owner, the GM cars are heavier, bigger, and are delivering comparable or better acceleration AND they use less gas. I feel like Honda/Toyota are not as good on gas as some would have you believe and obviously they could do better since both vehicles are smaller and lighter. These facts make me angry. Sure, my reliability is supposedly better but when police forces are selecting the GM 3.8L it makes me wonder.
I am pleased with the accord but I am beggining to envy those driving the 3.8Lv6...I rented them and they are a lot of fun....any advice. (I already am aware of the reliability risks)
Fuel consumption is fairly linearly correlated with engine torque output and engine revs. You can't magically throw a high torque output engine in a heavy car and expect good mileage if you drive it with any kind of spirit. The quicker a car accelerates, the more gas it uses. And the heavier the car, the more weight the engine has to push.
On the highway, those big pushrods have enough low-end torque that they don't have to turn over much to maintain speed. This aids fuel economy.
But a heavy car with a torquey engine is going to use more gas on acceleration than a light car with a weaker engine. That's why V6s get 20mpg or worse in the city, but most 4-cyls get 25mpg or better.
There's no need for you to get angry. Published horsepower figures are pretty much garbage because they are rated at the flywheel. What matters is power at the wheels. I can only talk from anecdotal evidence, but Honda and Toyota are more concerned about keeping the drivetrain efficient than the Big 3. Honda in particular is crazed over weight and efficiency. So what if their V6 gets 195ft-lb peak and the 3800 gets 225ft-lb? Test the power at the wheels. The Honda will lose less in drivetrain inefficiencies than the Regal/Grand Prx/Impala/Intrigue (which is all the SAME car, ha ha!).
Police forces get the GM 3.8L because its cheap and American. Pretty simple.
Envy the 3.8L V6? Bah! Sure, its got an entertaining amount of take-off torque, but good luck revving the sucker to get power. Above 3500 rpm, it sounds like utter crap and if you nail the engine hard, it gets rough, loud and thrashy. Ugh, I'll take a OHC any day, thank you.
However, as I said I have taken the initiative to rent these vehicles..have driven several hundred miles long distance and city and the fuel economy is in fact better than my accord..even in winter..this is perplexing. The numbers I posted are EPA.
The 3.8's seem to be quicker off the line in everyday driving...passengers dont seem to take notice even if the driver is driving aggressively. In the accord, I find there is enough of a racket for a moderately aggressive 0-60 run that I almost never want to satisfy my need for acceleration. You have to punch it which can make passengers uncomfortable.
I just think that all considered, I like what I own but find the 3.8 to be more fun to drive...I guess its a personal preference. I think honda/toyota can definitely do a better job in the fuel economy area.
I noticed that the torque curve for the 1.8L corolla is substantially flat with more than 100lbft for all rpms. I would like to see this kind of innovation in the honda/toyota v6's so that they are very driveable in the lower rpms.
I think toyota is pursuing this seriously..the avalon 3.0v6 fuel economy number of 21/29 is certainly a step in the right direction.
BTW I found a 0-60 test for impala 3.8v6 by motor trend ... 7.7 seconds...not too bad as long as the car stays in one piece.
I agree that "Honda in particular is crazed over weight and efficiency" but it looks like our smart US engineers have come up with better performance without having to sacrifice vehicle size. Now if they could only get the reliability right.
The talk on horespower and torque is interesting but its not the reason I bought my Accord. Its a family vehicle that has excellent crash test records and a solid reliablity rating.
I am more of a Point A to Point B driver. If my wife didn't want new I would have opted for a used Accord.
I have not driven the Accord 3.0L V6, but I've read a smittering of comments about its lack of low-end torque. I'd be curious to see the dyno chart. My 2.3L I4 was designed for a flat and wide power band. Over 90% of peak torque is produced at 2500rpm and it stays over 85% through 5500rpm. As a result, you really don't have to rev the sucker to death to get good acceleration, even though it is a VTEC. I've seen 0-60 results averaging 8.5 for the Honda 4-cyl, which isn't drastically far off from the V6, and the I4 gets 26/32...very decent. Perhaps Honda still does better with fours. Toyota is rather the opposite. The 4-banger in the Camry is forgettable and weak, but the 3.0L V6 is a real fine machine.
The Camry 4cyl starts off with 130lbft at 2000 rpm and continues upwards to peak at 150lbft at 4400rpm. Camry torque is flatter and delivers more torque through the driving range.
I have no bias here but the camry is a more driveable vehicle and this is reflected in their market share. Even though peak hp for camry is less than accord, the 0-60 for both is about the same when equipped with automatics.
I don't know where you got your torque figures, but they are certainly flywheel readings. The torque figures I saw came from a dyno, so they reflect power at the wheels. What's produced at the flywheel isn't tremendously important because of drivetrain inefficiencies. That's why tuners put their cars on dynos, so they can see the actual, real-world effects of engine mods.
Nice thing about it, though -- the new Camry is awesome looking, and if the new interior looks anything like the exterior, they'll have a real winner on their hands.
I've driven both the 4- and 6-cyl Camry and Solara, and although acceleration from rest is spirited in the 4, it really runs out of steam at freeway speeds. I'd definitely get the 6-cyl, it's just no contest.
Around 70% of new Accords come with the 2.3L I4. Either Honda cannot manufacture enough V6s or enough people think the I4 is satisfactory. It's probably a little of both.
Backpedalling my previous comment, if Honda WERE to offer a manual with the 3.0L V6, I'm not completely sure I'd opt for the six. The 2.3L has peppy performance with the manual, I'm plenty happy with smoothness/quietness and I really appreciate getting mileage in the mid-20s...I estimate I'd get about 17 with the V6. The V6 would probably add a good 100-125 pounds to the front-end of this FWD car...not the most ideal. Perhaps a good hard-throttle blast down the street would change my opinion. The 2.3L is not truly suited to high-speed driving. Once it gets up to about 80 mph, it doesn't necessary egg you on to go much faster. It isn't turning over very fast (~3100 rpm), but then again Hondas never seemed to be cars that encouraged triple-digit speeds, so I don't know if the V6 would make much of a difference here.
Accord 4 cyl with Auto is at least 1.5 seconds faster than the Camry 4 cyl Auto. Camry I4 & Caravan(!) are same at 0-60 i. 10.5 Seconds !! Market Share: They are the same !! If you don't count the rental sales they are doing, accord has better market share(to direct consumers). Honda doesn't have problem selling V6 Accords & they are always in demand. There are much more V6 accords sold than the V6 Camrys. (It is also related to pricing). So regarding market share there is no point in debating that. They have the same. Except for 1999, Accord outsold Camry to direct owners every year in the last decade.
I4 on Camry is the only Non-VVTi engine Toyota is having in the mareket !! I though they would add it in 99 or 2000 but they didn't. Camry I4 is OK to drivearound the city speeds but it really begs more power at higher speed, where Accord I4 has an edge over it.
Also, could someone post these so called "dyno" numbers that show the torque at the wheels for a 4cyl accord vs 4cyl camry. The torque numbers I posted earlier are direct from the manufacturers (toyota and honda). I think they are comparable.
Personally, I dislike the 0-60 manual numbers because they aren't realistic. 99% of people I have seen don't push their manual transmissions to get those 0-60 numbers. On the other hand, those with automatics have no qualms "punching it". I mean, very few drivers should be going around racing each other with manuals right? Thats not to say that some may be doing this..but not in everyday driving I hope. In North America, automatics are the norm for a reason.
Most of the time, the cars I see that exhibit moderate to aggressive acceleration in everyday driving are Maxima's and v6 powerplants and the majority of those are automatics.
Someone asked why Honda v6 has no manual. It's probably because a person who can afford the v6 would likely not want to be bothered with a manual or extracting the extra 1 second 0-60 time from it. Most of v6 engine sales in the US are automatics so to offer a manual is not worth it. v6's provide dynamic and flexible power.
IMHO todays electronically controlled v6 autos are as good if not better at managing the high and flat torque curves of v6's for everyday driving, city or highway.
Most of the US v6 makes also offer automatics only. With a grand prix gtp or buick regal posting 0-60 of 6.6s with automatics effortlessly, what more could you possibly want or get from it in everyday driving.
From experience, those popping their clutches day in day out to get great 0-60 times will see premature wear and tear in their transmissions. Automatics are more forgiving for those with heavy feet.
Manuals are fun for driving style, but I dislike the 0-60 MT numbers because most drivers are neither skilled nor motivated to achieve them in everyday driving. It is misleading.