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
Accord does have better 0-60. But you have to rev above 4500 rpms (VTEC) region to get the better 0-60 time. That rpm band is normally not used by most people, especially in urban conditions.
Most people do rev above 3500 rpms (I don't). And most people don't need super fast 0-60. Notice how the best selling compacts -- Civic DX/LX have SLOWER 0-60 time than the Camry 4-cylinder. They both are fine on the highway, but don't come remotely close to a V6. Just shows best sellers don't have to have best speeds.
Toyota didn't put in the VVT-i engine because it wouldn't be worth the trouble of retooling the assembly line. The Camry had no problem selling without the help of VVT-i engine, and since it's only got less than 6 months to go, the cost associated with having to stop and retool the assembly line just doesn't seem to make much sense.
The 2002 Camry will be here in 6 months from now (trial production run with the several prototypes designs will take place in March to May). Most likely engines are 2.4L VVT-i engine, 155-160 hp, and 3.0L VVT-i V6, 220 hp. There is rumor of a sports tuned model (remember last generation Camry's V6 SE model?)
It will be interesting to see how they turn out. Knowing Toyota, I don't think they will screw up their bread winner, unless they had an exchange program with Ford.
People make fun of US makes that have high market share due to fleet sales. What is wrong with fleet sales?
Also, if fleet/commercial buyers prefer US makes what does this say about their business decision? Why would you or a business buy a car that is less reliable and depreciates faster than a Japanese brand? It surely isn't just because they are a little cheaper because the cost of borrowing isnt that high and the depreciation alone is burdensome. It surely isn't for the write-off because the business would still lose money vs buying a honda or toyota and selling the it to recoup most of the investment.
Could it be that their business decision takes all factors into account and in fact the US makes are the overall lowest cost choice (including depreciation)?
Yes, this one is puzzling when you think about it and I am not saying I know the answer either.
Some will say that Honda or Toyota dont want the fleet sales business. Again, this is not true. If it contributes to the bottom line or reduces per unit overhead costs then it is a worthwhile sale. Both Honda & Toyota are publicly traded companies and would be decreasing shareholder value if they didnt pursue all markets.
Could it be that Honda and Toyota know that fleet sales will eventually translate into bad reliability numbers down the road just like for the US makes?
Some will disagree with what I have said here. When responding, I ask that you back up your arguments with the business case i.e. as a business why would honda or toyota or fleet buyers do what they are doing. This could be interesting.
MT vs AT: I think you have it all wrong. People with manuals are more capable of getting great 0-60s, because their transmission allows them to hit redline and launch at a higher rpm. Most automatics shift a bit before redline and don't really allow jackrabbit, tire-smoking starts. Autos often lack the extra 5th gear. I consistently outrun most of the V6 midsizes out there because I am very willing to use the entire powerband of my 2.3L. That's why I like a manual.
When I took delivery on my Accord, one of the servicepeople asked me why didn't I take the auto V6: "that thing is FAST, man." Now that I've had my EX 5-speed for a month, I am very glad I made the choice I did. Manuals rule. I don't care if I have a 4 or 6 under the hood. I can always get good performance from a manual.
Fleet sales: They are legitimate, but removing them from the equation shows what car buyers REALLY want. Fleet buyers are more or less limited to the brand they can buy. Certain car rental agencies stick with one brand only, for example. But retail buyers like you and me can buy anything we want. Retail buyers pick the Accord over any other car. That's an important distinction.
I'm not familiar with the fleet market, per se, but I do know fleet buyers earn deep discounts. I think the Japanese automakers have enough profit-sense to prevent whittling their brand value down by selling a boatload of their popular cars to fleets for a discount. The Big 3 have little pride. Heck, they resort to multi-thousand dollar rebates time and again just to move product. You hardly see Honda and Toyota doing that. No, they believe in brand building and it seems the Japanese mentality is long-term. Fleet sales, while nice to the short-term bottom line, can serve to diminish long-term profits and most definitely kill resale value and "brand mystique". I mean, Accord is a powerful, powerful brand. You might write it off as an appliance, but the larger market reveres this car. Tsk, tsk all you want, but it's true...like I said, Accord is #1 to retail buyers year after year. Honda is definitely doing something right.
I not necessarily pooh-poohing the Camry here since its fleet sales are generally minor. But my previous car, Ford Contour, has a pathetic resale value because there are so many rentals. Same with Taurus. Perhaps Ford is learning a little because Focus doesn't get sold to fleets (that I know of)...they still make the Escort for fleet buyers. This is a prudent step in defending a brand. Of course, Focus suffers from typical Ford recall hell, so maybe it doesn't matter anyhow.
I used to drive manual but as the years go by you get sloppy....early up-shifting, delayed downshifting, straddling in neutral especially in peak traffic...it really annoys people following you because the shifting is erratic and the acceleration is uneven.
When I am following a manual I have to keep a distance because their acceleration rate stalls as they upshift or they are unable to keep up with traffic flow. Often, I just punch my v6 automatic and have already passed them in the time in which they are still shifting gears. See what I mean.
I dont buy the brand mystique argument. If honda is better and better built, they should compete in all markets and drive the big 3 out or force them to change. The status quo doesn't help anyone....it is uncompetitive. Likely, this is not the case...Honda wont service fleets because they cant compete...not because they choose not to.
Except 1999. That year belonged to the Camry. It's always a very close call between the two. I think Toyota made a mistake by not putting out a coupe version like the Accord had back in 1997 and 1998, or it might had those years too.
Anyway, yes, those are some close numbers.
Fleet sales are ok to a small extent. I draws in buyers (who have driven then), and allow extented test driver for consumers. Of course, the extra money in the corporate coffer is nice too.
Both Toyota and Honda DO have fleet sales, but did a good job of keeping the numbers low enough. Extra money from fleet sales are good, but when reliability sinks and the used car market is flooded, then that's too much.
GM wants to be all things to all people and look where it's gotten them. They make take the same car, rebadged and restyle it, and think they are reaching different markets.
Honda is one of the biggest takeover targets out there...they and BMW. It would be nice if these two companies merged if they were forced to sell and lose their independence. It would be awful if GM or Ford bought either.
If Toyota builds the capacity, they could very well be the largest automaker in a few decades. I think it's all downhill for GM and who knows if Ford can survive if truck sales falter.
Saturn LS - "we brought out an Accord and Camry in case they had any doubts".
Mitsu Galant - "even topped Accord and Camry. Boy do we love saying that."
These other makers are simply cultivating the impression that Accord/Camry are king of the heep, whether they realize it or not.
Even before M-B ran their image ads, Honda ran a small TV campaign in the mid '90s that simply showed Honda owners with their Accords in their driveways...some from the '80s, some from the early '90s and some current. At the bottom of the screen, they listed the model year and mileage. This was marvelous advertising if you ask me. For once, they weren't showing the same old "spec this, spec that". Here, they are implying through images: "You've heard the acclaim, from friends and family members, about this economical wondercar we call Accord. Visit your Honda dealer and see for yourself."
Stop gritting your teeth Toyota fans. I'm just making a point. It kind of reminds me of Apple Computer ads: You are buying more than just a computer, you are buying something more than the sum of its parts. (For the record, I hate Macs.)
Actually, I think Toyota returned the salvo and ran some ads about "quality". I don't recall the details now, but the point was the Camry was the epitamy of quality. Why look anywhere else...perfection is at hand. Something like that.
Big 3? NOW GET TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS CASH BACK ON CHEVY MALIBU, THE CAR YOU KNOW AMERICA COULD BUILD! HURRY IN!!!
It's like saying "well, the BMW 328i only has a 180-some horsepower engine and costs over $35,000, while the GTP has 240-some and is under $25,000". They don't get it.
To further that thought, consider that Accord's most popular engine, the 2.3L I4, has 152 horsepower. 152! I mean, it sounds like a pittance. Heck, what am I saying, Camry gets only 136 from its 4! But this perceived weakness doesn't seem to matter with sales, does it? A car is more than the sum of its parts.
Hmm... Honda easily sells all the Accords it can manufacture. It even has to import some Japanese made Accords because its Ohio plant can't keep up with demand. Yup, the Accord just can't compete with the Taurus or Malibu can they. Maybe if Honda really tries hard, they can sell almost 50% of their cars to fleet sales and have awful resale value and be just be like the Taurus. Geez.. Ford's goal a few years ago was to decrease their Taurus fleet sales and make up the difference with retail sales. It hasn't worked out very well for them, but why would Ford want to do that anyway and have a "less competitive" vehicle.
bgabel1260:
My last car was an Accord V6 Coupe and I had an easy time driving at 3 digit speeds. The car seem pretty stable to me. V6 models do come with better tires. And my gas mileage was no where near 17mpg (I drove the car like I Stolen it too). I miss the Accord's wonderful V6 engine.
My current car (Jetta VR6 w/5 speed) is also very stable at high speeds (more than my last Accord), but the engine is humming and the wind noise is loud. All this ruckus discourages me from driving my Jetta at triple digit speeds.
Something to keep in mind when deciding, Camry is up for redesign one year before Accord, 2002 vs 2003. I don't like buying the last year of a model car. Then my car doesn't look old after 12 months!
I think the most important opinion is your wife! Since you said it will be her car, she should enjoy driving it and be comfortable in it. Good Luck.
Camry V6 is good. It's 6 hp less than Accord V6, but has 14 ft-lbs more torque. And the power is more reachable (available at lower RPM). So it has more kick off the line, and easier on the pedal. The transmission is another thing, the camry's automatic is smoother, and the V6 could also be mated to a 5-spd (although 5-spd availablity is limited).
The new Camry V6 will be the 220 hp, 3.0L V6 from Lexus (same as Tundra got it's V8 from Lexus). It's one fine engine.
I am not sure what year they are talking about. I have a 99 acord V6 and there is no problem. The temp gage stays well below mid.
If you want to buy a 4 cyl anything out here (or any engine size), better check it out in the heat. Make sure the vendor has some sort of a maxi-cool option where either a bigger radiator or extra radiator core is installed. Also opt for a transmission cooler.
As for reliability -- it's a wash. Honda owners cross-shop Toyotas and vice versa. Pick the car that pushes your buttons, and enjoy!
http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/2000/
honda/accord/se4drsedan23l4cyl4a.html
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 9.5 sec.
MotorTrend: Last page Manual I4 8.5
manual I4 Coupe:
Zero to 60 mph. . . . . . . . . .8.2 New
sec. . . . . . . . . . . .8.1 sec after 40,000 miles !
Now Camry:
http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/2000/
toyota/camry/le4drsedan22l4cyl4a.html
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 11.1 sec.
Isn't it a joke ???
Now one more for camry CarnDriver: 10.5
Camry's are more expensive than comparable Accord, yes?
Accord V6 doesn't require premium gas whereas Camry V6 does.
The 2002 Camry, sound like Toyota is just putting the new 4cycl which is more competitive with Accords 4cyc, yes?
Heard anything about the new 2002 Camry?
This isn't a knock against Toytota. I currently own a Toyota and very pleased with it. But I'm looking at Honda's too and just stating the facts. If my facts are wrong please jump in and correct me. The only thing I can see against Honda are that I heard that they are more expensive to fix than Toyotas. Any truth this? Just want the best car my money can buy.
Leo
From the maintenence board it seems Accords have trouble with their transmission?
Do you REALLY think so ?Every year Honda imports 60-70K accords from Japan as their capacity here is only 340 per year Do you think they can AFFORD to sell Accords to fleet...==> No. As they don't NEED to. Accord moves off dealer lots fast & don't need any fleet sales. Honada mentions reasoning for 2% fleet sales in their reports.
It is brand equity what they are building by not doing fleet sales. Camry is sold to fleet as Toyota has more capacity & WANTS to keep Camry #1. They use low profit fleet sales to keep Accord at 'safe' distance in sale numbers. Ofcourse their fleet is also controlled but is more than Honda's due to more resources & capacity they have.
Both Toyota and Honda IMPORT Camry and Accord from Japan to fill in the shortage (about 60K a year).
Since both Accord and Camry has to be shipped to the U.S, I wonder why they do fleet sales. There must be a reason why Honda and Toyota do it.
Civic is not a highway transportation? I disagree with you there. It's meant for highway as much as any car. Which car sold in the U.S isn't meant for that purpose? It's the cheap family car. The fact that the Civic is slower demonstrate what's the market finds acceptable in term of 0-60. Appearantly, both Civic and Camry does it fine.
I don't like to rev the engine. What's the point? If I can get power down low, it's even better and more useful in everyday driver. That's the advantage of VVT-i over VTEC. It has power at all rpm rang, doesn't require you to go over 4000 rpms to the variable timing to kick in. Most people I know don't go over 3500 rpms in their everyday driving. Why not have a system that give the benefits at the more everyday condition?
Leo
As many Big 3 3.8 200hp V6 do it in 8 seconds !! Wenyue yes you are partially right about the Civic being used for freeways. But Camry is more candidate for freeway than the econocars like Civic. So 0-60 while not SO imp for an econocar(15-16K) it it does carry weightage for a $20K car !!
Leo
Check out these review articles.
http://www.auto.com/reviews/86457.htm
The test car is a LE-V6, as noted in the article.
"...Toyota recommends unleaded premium.....Note the wording here -- recommended, as distinct from required...You can burn good old 87 octane unleaded if you want, and the knock sensors incorporated in the engine computer should keep you from any grief..."
Kelly's Blue book:
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.rp?kbb&&11&00camry
Note the 91 octane is recommended, not required.
Also Edmunds's long term test car, the Camry LE-V6 ran on 87 octane:
http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/1997/toyota/camry/roadtests/longterm.html
They noted that with 87 octane, cold start in the winter might be more difficult with, 91 octane "per recommmendation of the owner's manual" helps in that case. (that's why 91 octane is recommended). It should run fine on 87, with most brand, but if you have problem, going to a higher octane level would help.
If you visit the Camry forum, besides Edmund's test car (an early production 97), I haven't heard any problems yet with 87.
"I'm sure a car with 0-60 of 11.1 is scary in passing/highway merging." -- If all those Civic DX/LX buyers didn't die of heart attacks on the highway, then I don't think Camry drivers have anything to worry about.
Sober:
8.1/8.2 seconds are for 5-spd manual, and ran by professional drivers in ideal condition on a controled race track. It's 8.8 seconds by ordinary people (edmunds). Automatic needs 9.5 sconds. Camry automatic needs 11.1 seconds. Accord is faster. I agree. But the Camry does all right on the highway. It's no speed demon, but gets the job done. Camry is one of the safest car in the country, has a lower death and injury rate than the faster Accord. It means it gets on and off the highway just fine, if not in any exciting manner. After all, the slower Civic drivers all survived too.
But like denniswade, I would wait for the 2002 Camry. It's got a more powerful 4 cylinder, a muscular Lexus V6 (now that's top quality!), and possibly a sports model. Can't wait!
When I said Accord I4 is faster than Camry I4 he asked for the urls/links etc. That is why I gave it to him. One thing I don't get it is that why you want to get Civic to compare to Camry ??
There are 422K camrys sold last year that means almost 380K buyers found camry I4 to be OK for freeway or their daily use. It is not been questioned if Camry I4 wouldn't have been accepted by people it would been change to have a few more hp for 2000 model year as such. But Accord I4 IS faster. almost by 1.5 to 2.0 seconds.
Hondas ARE sold in more numbers in manual trannys than Toyotas. Finding Camry with 5 speed is almost impossible. (Having OK equipement). Where aas finding EX Accord I4 in manual is an easy task & there ARE more people getting manuals in Hondas than Toyotas. Now, don't ask for actual numbers for God's sake, it IS what I opbserve. There are MUCH more Civics in manual trannys than the Corollas on road. I see almost 40-50% of older generation Civic coupes(both Lx & many EX) in manual trannys. There are 5 Civic coupes EX parked in our apartment complex with manual tranny !! It is something !
I agreed long ago that the Accord is faster, but simply don't agree to some comments by some user here trying to make 0-60 in 10.5 seconds sound like hell, when they don't say a bad thing about the Civic's slower performance in other forums.
Accord is faster, but not by 2 seconds. When both equiped with automatic transmission, it's 1-1.5 seconds at most. Just a correction. Don't want people to compare manual transmission to automatics now do we.
Accord do have more manual tranny's. But the vast majority are still automatics, I think you know that. Same goes for the Civic. Most are automatics. Take a look on the road and news paper ads, you will noticed 5-spds are rare compared to automatics.
Again, you fail to see the business case. From the Honda 2000 Annual report the following facts were reported by the CEO, Hiroyuki Yoshino: "Consolidated operating income for the year totalled ..$4,015 million, a decline of 22.3%"
Global unit sales increased only 6% while net sales fell.
Can they afford not to sell to fleets? It looks like their gross margins should be able to withstand the extra sales. More units equals lower per unit costs...its simple business common sense. All you need is another plant.
"It is brand equity what they are building by not doing fleet sales."
What do you think fleet buyers in Japan buy? Do you think Honda brand equity does not exist in Japan?
Are you saying that Toyota has less brand equity because of higher fleet sales?
Some police cars in Australia are accords, do you think the brand equity is less there? Or do the police buy them there because there arent as many runaway grand prix GTPs and mustangs?
"Honda mentions reasoning for 2% fleet sales in their reports."
Could you provide a source please?
An interesting link for market share:
http://macopinion.com/columns/utopia/aug98/up-25.html
I repeat however,
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. Those who know the benefits of torque should agree.
This article present a possible answer to why Honda (and Toyota) fleet sales volumes are low.
Sometime back, the Labor Government in the UK had made a big splash about the news that Honda has decided to stay back in the UK (in spite of the strength of the UK pound) and also increase the plant capacity there, while other automakers were threatening to pull out of the UK.
All three are nice cars but SEDANS with lots of body roll, instability in corners and nose heaviness. There is more to a sports car than straight line performance. A Civic is much more sporty in nature than an accord although the four cyl takes forever to reach 60 MPH. Similarly, you would feel much more sport in a 170HP Audi A4 than a 240HP Grand prix.
The main factors to consider in a sport car is agility and surefootedness. You should feel one with the car..it should translate into action the knitting of your eyebrow.
Accord and Maxima sporty and Camry luxury..give me a break.
What was I thinking? Should have bought an echo because less torque is more driveable according to venus537.
Hondas productiion capacity is limited & it is difficult for them to manage individual customer
i.e high profit sales. Let me repeat this: Honda is NOT able to cope with individual Customer demand. So doing Fleet sales would hurt them MORE. I hope you get it. How many Odyssey's are sold to fleet at lower profit ? ZERO. All Odys to date are sold at MSRP !! So why would Honda dump Odys to fleet like Caravan when they are not able to match the high-profit demand ?
All you need is another plant.
My God, Why didn't you tell this to Honda ? Do you think they are mad enough not to have another plant !!
consumers end up buying the car they rent if they like it. Toyota has done this succesfuly with Camry/Corolla
What do you think fleet buyers in Japan buy? Do you think Honda brand equity does not exist in Japan?
Japan : Size of fleet market is negligible compared to USA due to public transportation. It doesn't count.
Yes Honda does have reasoning to keep fleet sales low in their material. Source is year end the financial report (Don't have url or copy of it)
Castleowner: Do you after all those urls STILL think that Camry I4 is more direvable than an Accord I4 !! -:)) Accord I4 is MUCH more revv happy than Camry I4 which makes it more drivable than Camry I4. It seems you don't want to accept a FACT !! -:)
I own a 2000 Accord SE purchased in December 1999.
I drove Camry Accord Maxima, Impala, Lumina,VW Passant.
Came down to Camry vs. Accord. I did not find much difference in driveability (I like cruising in my HO better). I purchased Accord for basically 1 reason the SE version.
Basically, the way Toyota sets up the trim lines and options to get exactly what you want is difficult. I kept an eye on the specials for Camry and Accord for 6 months and then Honda came out with the SE that the dealer was selling for cost with 3.9% financing. Purchased the SE no options as it had exactly what I wanted and nothing more.
I realize many people want the option flexibility. Personally I find it annoying.
If the Camry had a quick order package that contained what I wanted and nothing I did not and had a better financing deal probably would have purchased the Camry.