Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

13468955

Comments

  • milindcmilindc Member Posts: 123
    U r going to give life this discussion it seems !!
    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....
  • steaglesteagle Member Posts: 1
    Some of us like our Honda's exactly the way they come off of the show room floor. I prefer to love the cars and hate the other kids.
  • xfactorxfactor Member Posts: 78
    Liufei/Wenyue

    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.
  • wenyuewenyue Member Posts: 558
    Don't know much about Honda's distribution system. But I think Toyota uses a system called "just in time", which the cars gets made in Japan. Is shipped to the U.S at various region/port. And it's now in the hands of a Toyota's distributor. And how they handle it varys.

    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.
  • xfactorxfactor Member Posts: 78
    The customs issue will generally come up when a Japanese distributor is exporting to a US third party. There is a reluctance to disclose the IFP price as the purchaser can then determine the profit margin of the distributor. If the sale is between affiliates the disclosure of profit margins is not really an issue.

    Thanks for the info.
  • butch11butch11 Member Posts: 153
    Most large companies have two sets of books for export purposes-they also have offshore trading companies which do the transactions so they can move profits around to avoid taxes. If you are ever in the capitol of Grand Caman, Georgetown-look at some of the small law offices and you see all kinds of small placques near the door on the outside announcing the presence of some trading company.

    Wish I had those problems.
  • xfactorxfactor Member Posts: 78
    Offshore trading companies do exist. One in particular is the FSC program as in Foreign Sale Corporation. The program is perfectly legal and endorsed by the US government.

    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.
  • rsalter74rsalter74 Member Posts: 1
    Has either the Accord or Camry gotten more tolerable seats in the last few years?

    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.
  • butch11butch11 Member Posts: 153
    First of all, I sell medical systems, drive an 97 Accord, weigh @200#, spend too damn much time on the road and know more than I care to about chiropractors. First of all-going to a chiropractor could is a risky proposition with high risk and very low probability of significant benefits. Last year a family member had a stroke and spent a lot of time with him during his 6 month stay in the hospital-a 33 year old healthy male was 2 rooms down-paralized from the neck down-this happened while a chiropractor was manipulating his back. Back pain can have so many causes and the back is in my opinion exceeded in complexity by the brain. I would suggest you find a regional pain clinic. These are staffed by young MD's specalizing in pain. They will probably try to eliminate the pain by going the excercise route if they do not find a specific mechanical issue. There are big problems in the medical profession-but in my opinion, going to a chiropractor is taking a big risk with few potential rewards.

    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
  • lumberfoxlumberfox Member Posts: 1
    considering a tl..(even though cl's are great)....manual specs 93 rating....acura service tech says "Most people" use 87 rating...comments folks
  • titopuentetitopuente Member Posts: 46
    USE WHAT THE MANUAL SAYS
  • bsahabsaha Member Posts: 7
    I own a 99 LEV6 Carry & very happy with the performance. It feels very sporty when you slam down the gas. The Honda is also a very good vehicle, though my next car will definitely not be a Toyota or a Honda(Both I dull - listen I Honda guys(admit it)). I have a leaning towards the Maxima(if only they do some re styling, Passat or Infiniti(I30) or used Q45(excellent buy in the resale market).
  • lmtoddlmtodd Member Posts: 3
    Rob, don't buy a 2000 Accord. Their seats are terrible also. I sold my 2000 Honda Accord Ex last week because my back could not tolerate the seats. I loved everything about the car but the seat. I have a 93 Accord which does not bother my back at all. Fortunately, I broke even with the sale of the 2000 Accord after tolerating the seat for nine months. If I could find another 93 Accord in nearly as good condition as mine, I would buy it in a heartbeat. The most comfortable new vehicle seat I have tried recently is in the Dodge Dakota truck. It will not get the mileage of the Honda but it will be kind to my back.
  • christineb2christineb2 Member Posts: 1
    Well this is perfect for me. I leased a civic for 3yrs and turned it in last month. I was happy with it, but wanted more room, so I researched and decided to stay with Honda (gas mileage, quality, price) and got a 2001 Accord. I drove it for 3 wks and was happy with it...and then there was a crazy issue with American Honda where they decided to change their approval status and wanted me to get a balloon with higher interest thru another lender, which of course I did not want to do. I was incredibly disappointed in their business, as I have paid every last dime owed to American Honda and my credit is the same as when they leased to me in '98, but said ok, and decided to get my "other" choice. A Camry. Decided to get a 2000 instead, and am wondering if Camry's cost more, why don't they have near the storage space the new Accords do for cd's and such, and WHY don't they have any lighting for passenger/driver as the Accord does? The stereo system IS much better, and I do like the way it drives more, despite the slightly smaller engine, but it's the little things that baffled me. Also, no lighting on sunviser mirrors on the camry. I was disappointed, but being temporarily burnt out on Honda after my experience I will accept the differences and be satisfied for several years. I do like the body study, good gas mileage, etc better. It's going to be a good car! ---My only thought is, do the 2001 Camry's HAVE some of these things I'm "missing"? If so, it was my error not to check the current model out before buying the 2001. Not exactly the thing that most reviews cover... Thanks for listening. I'm enjoying reading everyone's thoughts! :)
  • blexv6blexv6 Member Posts: 9
    The bottom line is that both these vehicles are excellent. It comes down to preference and PRICE. I don't care what any of you say, if you compare the top of the line Camry to the Accord, both of which are essentially similar, Honda has a large advantage in price and dealers are reluctant to reduce their prices as they sell easily. It is a pain haggling. As such, if you negotiated a deal for the Camry or Accord, you are still starting with a more expensive Camry price. So even if you get a better price on the Camry from MSRP, it is all relative, that is if you buy a Honda, you are working down from their MSRP, so the net result if all things are equal, you still have a much more expensive Camry. I know, as everytime I buy a new car, the determining factor between these two vehicles is $. (These two vehicles are all that I consider), Although I will probably purchase the Acura TLS next which again $ wise, is much cheaper than the Lexus ES300. I once heard the difference in price is because Toyota dealers get better markup than Honda dealers.
  • rasputinrasputin Member Posts: 3
    The Accord and Camry are both top quality vehicles, but I find the Honda marketing much more customer friendly. With the Honda, almost all of your add-ons are included in the price and I was delighted six weeks ago when I bought my wife a new, made in Japan 2001 Accord EX, to be given the bonus of 2.9% financing by American Honda. Contrast this with Toyota's marketing where most of the add-ons are listed and priced separately with resultant buyer confusion and opportunities for dealer manipulation. Also, I sure didn't see any low interest financing offered on the Camry. In addition, I greatly admire Honda's pro-environment stance with their low emission engines and refusal to include cigarette lighters and ashtrays in their cars.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    Toyota was the first to offer a production hybrid -- the Prius -- for sale anywhere. It's been a brisk seller in Japan for going on three years now. Honda scrambled to offer the Insight here in the US so they'd get bragging rights as the "first" -- but they're not selling nearly as well as the Prius.

    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.
  • diamond11diamond11 Member Posts: 1
    Anybody can guide me which is better - Accord LX with ABS or Camry LE. I'm confused in making decission.

    Thanks
  • leomortleomort Member Posts: 453
    I read that Toyota's V6 requires premium gas. Does the Accord's V6 or Maxima's require premium gas in their V6 engines?

    Leo
  • bimmer4mebimmer4me Member Posts: 266
    My suggestion is test drive both cars. They're both great cars. My opinion only, one is not better than the other, it's a personal decision...interior, ride/handling and exterior style should be make your decision. I think the interior on the Accord is nicer looking, but that doesn't make it a better car.
  • wenyuewenyue Member Posts: 558
    Premium gas is optional. It's the same as Honda's Odyssey minivan, you don't get the last 4-5 hp if you don't use premium.

    You won't need the last few hp, as the engine is more than powerful enough as it is.
  • everydayeveryday Member Posts: 53
    I see Honda changed those Accord taillights, pink was so annoying.
  • bimmer4mebimmer4me Member Posts: 266
    Just curious, if the Accords tailights were so annoying...how do you get through the day..."everyday" can't imagine you having a real crisis and being able to cope...lifes a beach.
  • everydayeveryday Member Posts: 53
    That's right, but I might just be that nut that will run your pink Accord off the road in a fit of road rage!
  • bimmer4mebimmer4me Member Posts: 266
    Not even in your Camry on your best day.
  • armagostarmagost Member Posts: 10
    The Accord V6 loses no horsepower running on regular?

    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.
  • bcarwellbcarwell Member Posts: 10
    I test drove both a 99 Camry and Accord with similar configuraions...V6, leather, automatic.
    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.
  • maryg2maryg2 Member Posts: 33
    Like many of you, I test drove the Camry and the Accord Ex-6. First, I hated the interior of the Camry. It looked really bare and kind of cheap to me. I kept trying to convince myself to buy it, but I couldn't do it. The EX's interior looked luxurious by comparison. Also, everything I wanted was an "extra" on the Camry. I also had real trouble trying to figure out the option packages and the prices. On the other hand, everything I wanted and more was in the EX. It cost me $23,000 and I know I could have done better, but I am happy with it, except for the wind noise, which is annoying. Also, my windshield washer only washes the passenger side of the car, so it needs fixing. But at just 1,500 miles, I am really a happy camper. I had only two or three mechanical problems in 20 years of driving Accords, and none of them was a major thing, so that's pretty good reliability. Check out some of the sites for Dodge, VW, and Ford if you don't believe me.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    Nope, it doesn't lose any horsepower running on regular. The 200hp figure was derived from running 87 octane fuel. Honda COULD have decided to require premium 91 fuel and get published figures at about 210hp, but they figured the fairly stiff increase in operating costs were not sufficient for the extra 10hp or so. Plus, more differentiation from 225hp TL.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    A big turnoff I have on the Camry is the price. My 2001 EXL 5-spd Coupe has almost every available option and I bought it for $21,078. With Camry Solara, you put some options in it and you can do $23/24/25K fairly easily. True, if you stick with the Solara SE 4cyl/MT, the price difference is more competitive, but you can't even get leather interior on a Solara SE! Toyota also has NO APR incentives right now. Apples for apples, a comparably-priced Solara would have cost me $1900 extra in financing costs.

    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.
  • leomortleomort Member Posts: 453
    I talked to both a Nissan and Toyota salesman. Both said that their respective cars, Maxima and Camry le v6, require premium gas. The Honda salesman said that their V6 Accord does not. That' a big selling point to me. Also the insurance is the cheapest with the Honda. Again another selling point for me. Interestingly, the Maxima SE was a big jump in insurance premiums! Anyone know what the Accord LX V6 costs? Or is it worthwhile to get the EX V6?

    Leo
  • maryg2maryg2 Member Posts: 33
    For a reasonable price on the LX-6, look up Edmunds' TMV for the car. They keep these prices fairly up to date. You should never pay more than what the TMV is, although people often get the cars for less, especially if the car is on the lot and you walk in and make an offer. I got the EX-6 after 20 years of driving LX models because I really wanted the leather and the CD changer. I did not want the sunroof, but now that I have it, I love it. Also, the tires are a little bigger, and my husband swears it handles better for that reason. Whatever. It's a great car, and I feel pampered driving it, although if I had had $4,000 more, I would have considered an Acura.
  • getz1getz1 Member Posts: 63
    If you can afford it, go for the V6. It makes a humongous difference, especially at highway speeds. The I4 is very peppy when configured with the MT, but it loses out drastically at higher speeds (test drive both on the expressway and compare). Another selling point is that the V6 is quieter when cruising. My wife and I liked the V6 accord so much that we passed on more expensive german brands because they felt like a whole lot less car for the money. We have had no problems with our V6 ex accords, one coupe and one sedan.
  • mpgmanmpgman Member Posts: 723
    Can you give me some realistic gas mileage numbers for the Accord VTEC 4 with both auto and 5 speed? Like highway cruising around 70 with a light foot. 6 cylinder fans, please weigh in too. Is there a big difference with the manual or are they about the same as the auto? Thanks.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    If you are comparing gas mileage by engine and transmission type, use the EPA figures. You might not get these exact mileage figures for your driving style, but if one config gets 2mpg more than another, you should see the same relative improvement. Makes sense, right?

    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.
  • bcarwellbcarwell Member Posts: 10
    It was difficult to get the gas requirements from Toyota and Nissan. Very few auto reviewers state the minimum octane rating needed. The dealers flat lied about it; both said their V6s could regular gas. They are right - they can; just turn the radio up to drown out the pinging.
    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
  • castleownercastleowner Member Posts: 42
    The Camry v6 has superior torque with substantially more than 170lbft in low rpm driving ranges. Camry city/hwy is 20/27 mpg

    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)
  • heavenboundheavenbound Member Posts: 39
    I agree, It's interesting how a larger car like the Chevy Impala with the 3.8l V6, which is the car I drive gets equal or better gas mileage. My wifes Camry gets better milage but it's the 4 cyl. version.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    Ah, those seemingly-great 3800 Series II pushrods! Don't they LOOK good on paper?

    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.
  • getz1getz1 Member Posts: 63
    When talking about real world driving situations the automatic accord v6 is faster in a sprint to 60 mph than the automatic maxima, camry and the breakdown prone Grand-Am. Also with the VTEC, you have substantial acceleration at speeds greater than 60 mph. The engine kills, if it only had a 5 speed, I bet it would post 0-60 times in the mid six second range. I am really thrilled with the v6, as far as low end torque is concerned, the accord already has a tendency to break the wheels away from the pavement from a stop, anymore torque would almost go wasted without a manual tranny. As far as a family sedan is concerned, the accord is very performance oriented. Cruising at 80 feels no different than 60, it's a very well designed vehicle.
  • castleownercastleowner Member Posts: 42
    I agree with most of your points which are comforting.

    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.
  • jmincherjmincher Member Posts: 65
    is of the V6 variety. I get about 22/26 MPG and I have 5,000 miles on the car.

    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.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    Much blood has been spilled on these pages with arguments over pushrod and overhead cam engines. We need not go there. Both these engine types have sufficient unique feel to them that preference for either is mostly personal. Being under the age of 30, I've "been raised" on OHCs and prefer them greatly over pushrods. But my parents' generation wax nostaglic over the big iron of old and can't get over the neck-snapping torque of a large pushrod.

    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.
  • castleownercastleowner Member Posts: 42
    It took a lot of arm twisting to get the torque curve for the accord 2.3 VTEC. At 2000 rpm, torque is about 110lbft which is the same as a corolla 1.8L at 2000 rpm. At 2500 rpm, torque is 125lbft. It falls off a bit at 3500rpm and then peaks at 147lbft at around 5000rpm.

    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.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    The torque curve of the 2.3L I saw was in either the latest issue of Sport Compact Car or some Honda enthusiast magazine...I don't recall which. The plots (of the stock engine) showed that torque output at 2500rpm is only 10% below the overall peak at 4900rpm. From 2300-5500rpm, the curve was pretty flat - a dip around 3500 was the most notable feature - and it varied no more than 15-20% overall.

    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.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    The reason the Camry has a larger market share is because Toyota can manufacture more Camrys than Honda can manufacture Accords. And the 0-60 times are not the same when both cars are equipped with automatics, the Accord will be a second plus faster. The Accord is clearly a better performer in virtually all driving conditions when comparing 4 cylinder engines. By the way, the Camry's torque peak is 147lbft at 4400 rpm and the Accord's torque peak is 152lbft at 4900 rpm. As good as these 4 cylinders may be though, the V6s are the way to go with either one of these cars. They're as smooth, refined and silky as any V6power car at any price.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    that the Accord is more engaging to drive than the Camry. But the smoothness and quietness of the Camry -- as well as its styling, which I much prefer to the "economy" styling of the Accord (sorry, we all have our own taste, don't we)-- wins the day for me. (Except for that $%#@* interior -- bland, bland, bland!!!)

    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.
  • bgabel1260bgabel1260 Member Posts: 135
    Well, if Honda would offer a V6 with a PROPER transmission and third pedal...

    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.
  • soberssobers Member Posts: 496
    I have no bias here but the Camry is a more drivable vehicle and this is reflected in their market share. Even though peak up for Camry is less than accord, the 0-60 for both is about the same when equipped with automatics.

    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.
  • castleownercastleowner Member Posts: 42
    Could someone please post some links to road tests for camry and accord 4 cylinders showing 0-60 comparisons with automatics and also showing the accord 4 cylinder 0-60 auto is faster.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.