Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

wenyue · February 2001

You are in luck. Spy photo coming at ya.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/carnews/carnews_spyshots.xml

You can see the prototype Camry undergoing winter testing. It's heavily masked though. But you can cross reference with the concept specs at this site.

http://mag-x.com/scoop/camry0101/index.html

The over all shapes/features seems to fit quite well.

castleowner · February 2001

Nothing you have said can be found or supported by the Honda annual report...here is the link for the 2000 annual report...

http://world.honda.com/investors/annualreport/

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.

I think I have had enough!

castleowner · February 2001

From the torque curves I have direct from the manufacturer, the folowing are the torque characteristics for Camry and Accord 4cylinders:

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. Some accord owners feel they can reach these high rpms easily and do this often in day to day driving.

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 2000-4000 rpm driving range.

Readers should make there own conclusions and keep this in mind when test driving. Believe what you see and feel, not what you hear from others (including me).

The facts are presented, otherwise I have no comment as Accord/Camry owners have strong feelings either way.

I think I have had enough!!

getz1 · February 2001

I disagree, 0-60 in 10.5 does sound like hell to me.

210delray · February 2001

It may sound slow, but I've personally never found my '97 Camry 4-cylinder to be lacking, with the exception of passing on a 2-lane road. But that's not a common occurrence for me.

In common freeway merge situations, you can at least get up to 40-45 mph before you have to get into the through lane, and I've never felt the Camry 4 was underpowered in that situation -- just punch it and go.

Of course, I could be biased because I'm still used to the 107 hp of my '80 Volvo - now that's slow!

wenyue · February 2001

210delray said the best. If it's 10.5 seconds with an automatic is hell, then there wouldn't be such an astronomical number of Camry buyers. You should pray for the souls of those best sellers that are even slower. Examples: Honda Civic DX/LX automatic, and Ford Focus SE automatic, and baseline Ford Taurus automatic, ect. Don't forget that the Accord DX and Accord Value Package (VP) automatic has almost identical 0-60 number.

Oh, and don't forget, most of those manly SUVs are also slower. CR-V automatic would like to be able to do 0-60 in 10.5 seconds. So would the RAV4. What about the smash hit Nissan Xterra? Baseline trim, even with 5-spd, is slower. And the SUVs are suppose to give you that manly image?

The best sellng baby haller -- Dodge Caravan, the base trim is a second slower. It can't be bad if families halling kids are ok with that.

The truth is that 10.5 seconds is only 1 second slower than the Accord automatic, and it's faster than many on the street. It's acceleration is perfectly fine by real world standard. It's no race champ, but it's definitly not the last to finish the race either. For those who cares about speed, there is the V6 is available, (even 5-spd manual is available if you look for it).

bgabel1260 · February 2001

It might be very much true that other family cars get the same or slower acceleration times. It might also be true that some people find the Camry performance acceptable.

But I just find that this 10.5 figure is a black mark on a car that is allegedly The Leader. Camry 4-cyl really needs something closer to 9.0. It looks like Camry really needs that 2002 VVT-i engine. Accord returns the salvo in 2003 with the 2.4L. Both cars should then be matched on the spec sheet at ~160hp/160ft-lb...but they'll pull different performance figures. I wonder which car will win that.

venus537 · February 2001

The Accord's torque peak is 152lbft @ 4900 rpm and the Camry's torque peak is 147lbft @ 4400 rpm.

"Believe what you see and feel, not what you hear from others (including me)" This is the first thing that I read from you that makes any sense to me. I've driven both four cylinder engines, have you? Your profile indicates you drive a Chevy, not an Accord V6. What's up with that?

Though I enjoy my current car, I miss my Accord V6.

leomort · February 2001

but need help convert. The 2.4L at 118kw/221N.m

What does this translate to in hp and torque?

Leo

leomort · February 2001

but need help convert. The 2.4L at 118kw/221N.m

What does this translate to in hp and torque?

Leo

wenyue · February 2001

10.5 seconds a black mark for the class leader? I think not.

It didn't become a black mark for the slower Honda Civic, even though it has slower speed. It's still the class leader.

Nor it didn't stop people from buying the Accord DX and Accord Value Package, which as the same 0-60 time.

Or stop the best selling full size car, Ford Taurus (yes, it's classified as a fullsize) a bit slower 0-60 time.

Neither was it a black mark for the slower Dodge Caravan, the minivan class leader. And that's a baby hauler.

Nor was it the problem for the slower Honda CR-V, the compact SUV class leader. Or the Nissan Xterra.

Thinking about it. Camry has the fastest 0-60 time among all these "class leaders". It's funny isn't it?

I think people are trying to critisize the Camry for something that's perfectly fine. Just because someone have 1.0 second 0-60 advantage, doesn't mean the Camry can't pull it's own. If 10.5 seconds is a black mark, then Civic, Caravan, CRV, being even slower would never sell.

sobers · February 2001

I find Camry acceleration OK whenevr I rent it from Hertz for longer trips. Camry I4 is not good if you have to pass on a 2 lane road where a person in front of you is driving at 45-50 mph in 50mph limits. You have to plan it in advance. Accord I4 due to Vtec & revv happy engine is easier to manage in such circumstances. Also I disagree about 9.5 figure about the Accord I4.
Wenyue: Edmunds says Accord I4: 9.5 & Camry I4: 11.1 If CarnDriver & Motortrens & RoadnTrack can do 10.5 in Camry they could do better than 9.5 with the Accord I4. AND OFcourse they did !! Accord I4 is times lesser than 9.5 by these magazines consistently. Refer to the last page list of all cars. When I tried 0-60 in my car I guess roughfly I could do upper 8 (close to 9) (Ofcourse I DID punch it. First gear going very close to 5000 RPM)

Now, bottomline, Camry's 0-60 is quite Ok in the sense of everyday driving but if somebody says as denniswade did that Camry I4 is faster than Accord I4 then it IS wrong. Again I want to make clear that I found Camry I4 OK for everyday driving & so does thousands of other people.

wenyue · February 2001

Gladly.

118 kw is 158 hp.

221 N.m is 163 ft-lbs.

wenyue · February 2001

I think Edmund's forgot to make the adjustment for the power increase Toyota did in for the 2000 Camry model (Edmunds' data for 1999 and 2000 are the same, when they are actually different, it's 136 hp, but they listed as 133). Toyota retuned the engine in 2000. The result is more power and better acceleration. Shame on Edmunds.

10.5 seconds is not by Cars and Driver or any automotive magazine. But online source just like the Edmunds.

http://classifieds.nwsource.com/researchit/content/review071400.html

Also. Using the same driver (hence no skill difference). Here are the 0-60 number for the Camry and Accord (both automatic)

Camry 0-60: 10.3 seconds.

Accord 0-60: 9.6 seconds.

bgabel1260 · February 2001

Civic is a small car that gets over 30mpg in the city. It's not going to be a stoplight burner in base engine form. Edmunds shows the 2000 LX 5-spd Sedan (with 106hp/103ft-lb) at 9.5. Automatic figure is not listed. With the new 2001 engines, I'd expect a 2001 Civic with the base engine (115hp/110ft-lb) and an automatic to just slip below 10. It's not slower than a Camry.

The Accord DX and VP list for under $18,000. The Edmunds TMV on a 5-spd DX is $14,397. The TMV on the Camry 5-spd CE (aka Cheap Edition) with no options is $16,740. The Accord lowballs the Camry by almost $2500 here.

Taurus is best-selling because of fleet sales. I don't think minivans belong in this comparison. Nor SUVs. Why? Because midsize sedans have always been the bread-and-butter/flagship cars for automakers. Other body types are more for special applications and you can't mix or match a minivan or truck with a sedan.

Face it...Camry is slow, 4-cyl performance can be an issue, and no arm twisting is going to change that.

leomort · February 2001

to match the new Camry's 4 cyl? Will Honda increase their 4cyl to 2.4L? Wonder what the hp and torque will be on that.

Leo

sobers · February 2001

Auto adds a second over manual figures. So I think Civic even in the base engine form will close to Camry as far as 0-60 goes. Civic has pretty good figures for econoclass given that it also gives mid 30s mpg.

sobers · February 2001

What skills are required to get good 0-60 from Automatic transmission ? I agree that better driver can get better performance from 5-speed manual but Automatic just needs a punch to do 0-60. So whoever got 9.6 figure on Accord Auto is not very well aware of the VTec range & did not use it by underreving it. I can get close to 9 in my Accord Se without punching it like crazy. Just make sure that it revvs good in first gear itself.

I have seen 10.5 as the best on Camry I4 Auto & 9.0 best for Accord I4 Automatic.

wenyue · February 2001

stop trying to put a positive spin on the Civic's number

2000 Civic and 2001 Camry are comparable in age of it's design. Also, Camry get 30 mpg on the highway. Neither are stop light burners. Why are you comparing a 5 years old Camry design to a brand new Civic?

Also, the Civic LX automatic 0-60 is slower than 10 seconds. You lose AT LEAST 1 seconds in 0-60 time with the automatic in this class. I know for a FACT that the 2000 Civic LX automatic is slower than the 2000 Camry LE automatic. And the new Civic LX is not different enough to change that issue dramatically (remember the new Civic is HEAVIER than the old Civic). Just face it.

Also, we are talking about engines. The fact is that Accord DX and VP have the same 0-60 number. Why aren't you not critisizing their 0-60 number?

What does Taurus fleet sale has anything to do with 0-60 time? It's one of the most common cars around, and appearantly it's slower 0-60 number doesn't seems to be a liability.

SUV doesn't count? Why not? Just because you don't like the numbers? Or are 0-60 meaningless to SUV's? Acceleration are meaningless to them? So it's ok to have SUV that does 11 seconds but not cars? And it's ok to have minivans carrying children to be slower as well. Weren't you the one saying 10.5 seconds is hell and unsafe? I thought safety is one primary concern for SUV and minivan buyers.

Face it. Camry is not fast, not slow, it's perfectly suited to everyday driving. 10.5 seconds is fine. You are just trying to critsize it because you have 9.5 seconds.

Same reason why Camry buyers like to critize Accord knowing that we have the quiet advantage. We like to make the Accord sound like hell. When you have the advantage, it's always easy to critize the others, and exagerate the significance of the advantage.

wenyue · February 2001

No skill is required for 0-60 with automatic. My bad. What I meant is there isn't any difference in operatin procedure, and operating conditions.

Two different driver, will drive different, weight differently, in different courses, on different dates, with differently broken-in cars, with different gasoline grades, at different altitudes, different tires... Get my drift?

Please site your source for the Accord LX-automatic doing 0-60 at 9 seconds. I have just sited my source of Camry automatic does 0-60 at 10.3 seconds, with the same driver, doing 9.6 seconds with Accord LX automatic. I would like to have that source you saw 9.0 seconds. I have a database of URLs, and would be interested so see where you got that number.

bimmer4me · February 2001

I don't no much and don't care about all this torque stuff...numbers from 0-60, the two cars are both adequete in excelleration, period. What I do know is the Accords interior is superior to the mundane interior of the Camry...and I don't need a techno data to back up that statement...just take a look for yourselfs and you can see the vast difference. This was the main reason I purchased the Accord over the Camry and nothing else. If the Camry didn't have such a bargain basement looking interior, I may purchase the Toyota over the Honda. When I'm driving I like to feel satisfied with the surroundings I'm sitting in...it's like choosing what kind of furniture you would like in your living space...warm looking and inviting.

bgabel1260 · February 2001

It's not my fault that the Camry is based on a 5 year old design while the Civic is all new. Why should I compare the Camry with an old Civic when the old Civics aren't even on the market anymore?!

The LX automatic could be slower than 10 sec. But you said it was slower than Camry's 10.5. I don't think that's likely since the 2000 LX manual was 9.5, making the 2000 auto 10.5...and the new 2001 1.7L will shave a few fractions of a second off of that. It won't be slower than a Camry. And the LX auto gets 30/38.

I'm not criticizing the DX and VP because they match the Camry in acceleration, offer more room and cost thousands less.

Taurus' high fleet sales skew its popularity. On the retail level, Taurus is not a very hot seller at all, so people aren't running to their Ford dealers to get one. But anyhow, Edmunds shows the Taurus SES getting 8.3?

SUVs are expensive glorified trucks bought for vanity, so, no, I don't want to compare them. But I do think its interesting that the Sienna CE minivan gets 9.6 and the low-buck Corolla VE 5-spd gets 8.4.

The whole point of this issue is not that the Camry is the slowest thing on the road. The point is that Camry acceleration is outmatched by its midsize competition.

I personally don't have 9.5. I get 8.8 according to Edmunds. But that's not fair comparing a manual to an automatic, you say. OK...let's look at this: If you want a manual and the 4-cyl with the Camry, you are stuck with the base CE. You can't get a high trim level, the 4-cylinder and a manual. Sure, if you want lots of available options, you can opt for the LE V6 5-spd, but to get one comparably equipped to my Accord, the MSRP tips $26,000.

wenyue · February 2001

Hello, the Civic was a 5 year old design just few months ago. Why don't you compare to car of about the same age? Instead of trying to compare the all new Civic to the old Camry? Why not compare to the 158 hp new Camry to the Honda Accord? Let's see who the the slower one now.

"The LX automatic could be slower than 10 sec." It *IS* slower than 10 seconds, and it's slower than the Camry, not "could be". And don't forget the current Civic is HEAVIER than the old Civici. If you calculation the power to weight ratio, you will find that the they are almost exactly the SAME! Hence don't try to claim the new Civic LX automatic is faster, unless you have hard data. Well, do you? The Civic is slower than the Camry. Just face it, will ya?

"Taurus' high fleet sales skew its popularity. On the retail level, Taurus is not a very hot seller at all, so people aren't running to their Ford dealers to get one. But anyhow, Edmunds shows the Taurus SES getting 8.3?"

Are you familiar with cars at all? You are talking about the upper trim Taurus, with the 200 hp V6 engine. In case you didn't know, didn't you see that the Camry LE-V6 can do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. Why don't you compare comparable trim line? Don't try to make a case by using the wrong data. Also, even without fleet sale, (if you had 2000 Taurus fleet sale data), the Taurus would still be a top seller to people. Just face it. Don't try to argue without hard data, it's an act of despiration.

"SUVs are expensive glorified trucks bought for vanity, so, no, I don't want to compare them. But I do think its interesting that the Sienna CE minivan gets 9.6 and the low-buck Corolla VE 5-spd gets 8.4."

You are comparing 5-spd to the automatic,and V6 vs I4 engine. Do you know automotive at all?! Also, you are trying to put SUV out of the picture because it destory's your "slow" arguement. Well, like you said the SUV suppose to be a "manly" vanity ("bought for vanity") vehical. Guess what? The top selling CR-V, Xterra, with all their "manly" vanity, is actually slower than the Camry. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Oh, by the way, how does it feel to know that the cheapy $11,000 Corolla will out run your Honda Accord? Does that make Honda Accord a hellishly slow car to drive?

"The whole point of this issue is not that the Camry is the slowest thing on the road. The point is that Camry acceleration is outmatched by its midsize competition."

Wait. The top 3 sedan seller, #1 Camry, #2 Accord, #3 Taurus. Camry comes in at #2. How does that mean it's out matched by it's competition? Last time I learned, #2 out of 3 is middle of the pack, not "out matched". Oh, come to think of it, it's TIED for #1, if you take Accord DX and Accord VP automatic into consideration. "out matched"? Only if you think think the Accords are as well.

"I personally don't have 9.5. I get 8.8 according to Edmunds. But that's not fair comparing a manual to an automatic, you say." ---- wait wait wait. So you know the difference between manual and automatic, so what's the deal with you trying to compare Civic and Corolla MANUAL to Camry AUTOMATIC? Ignorance or Bias?

"If you want a manual and the 4-cyl with the Camry, you are stuck with the base CE. You can't get a high trim level, the 4-cylinder and a manual. Sure, if you want lots of available options, you can opt for the LE V6 5-spd, but to get one comparably equipped to my Accord, the MSRP tips $26,000."

Hey, don't forget, you can't even get an Accord V6 with 5-spd manual. So that's 1 vs 1. No body has the advantage. Also, wait, the LE-V6 is a V6. I would like to see how your 4-cylinder Accord is comparable to a Camry V6. (People who know the difference between a V6 and I4 please raise their hands).

pat · February 2001

Folks, let's remember to disagree agreeably and without attacking our other members.

Pat
Host
Sedans and Women's Auto Center Message Boards

bgabel1260 · February 2001

My, is it getting warm in here. Better open the window and let that arctic air in!

If I want to buy a Toyota Camry right now, I have to buy a 2001 model. The 2002 is not available. If I want to buy a Honda Civic right now, I also have to buy a 2001 model. The 2000 models are no longer built. Current Camry shoppers need to consider the current Camry's stats becuase that's the only Camry available.

We don't know if the Civic LX auto is slower than the Camry because Edmunds does not have the data for the LX auto. We can only make assumptions based on the LX manual's performance (whose data is available).

Again, I am using Edmunds for all my data. Taurus SES is shown to have the 3.0L Vulcan V6 (155hp) as standard equipment. The 200hp V6 is a $695 option. They show the SES at 8.3, but it isn't clear which engine they tested since either is available in this trim level. The SES is the only trim level where acceleration data is given. If I am comparing apples to oranges - be it Tauruses, Siennas or Corollas - it is because I am making due with the limited data that is available. I am not making figures up.

Why do you think my argument is weakened because there are models like the CR-V, Xterra, etc that accelerate slower than the Camry? As I said before I'm not suggesting Camry is the slowest thing on the road and just as well, these vehicles aren't even in the same category. I can say, "they'll cream the Camry in cargo space" and you'll return, "same thing with the Accord!" Exactly, you are comparing two different kinds of vehicles. Sedans, bigger or smaller, are fair game, but not utility vehicles like minivans and SUVs. If you disagree, I have nothing more to offer. That's a difference of opinion.

DOHC Neons and Cavalier Z24s can sometimes outrun my Accord 4-cyl, and if you think that's an issue, perhaps you should start a new topic. What we have here is Accord vs Camry.

I say "Camry is outmatched" not because of sales but because the competition beats it on acceleration figures, sometimes handily. Accord, Taurus, Intrigue, Malibu, Maxima - whatever you consider the competition - almost always have better results. Camry is a laggard in this category, that's the point. Maybe something is slower - Galant 4-cyl, perhaps? - but acceleration is indeed a category where Camry is truly outmatched by most others. It doesn't matter if we are comparing V6s and I4s. I'm just looking at the base engines...some only come in V6. Does this mean Camry is a lesser model than a Malibu because Malibu has a standard V6 and the Camry has an I4? I don't, and I certainly know you don't believe this either!

You can compare my EXL 5-spd to an LE V6 5-spd if you like, but I don't think you'll find much grounding when it comes to comparing $$$.

Hmm, it looks like my title is not accurate!

wenyue · February 2001

The previous Civic and the current Camry are about the same age. And there are still some 2000 Civic left over in the dealerships. So Camry and Civic comparison is valid. Even the 2001 Civic DX/LX automatic is most likely slower than the Camry automatic (if they are lucky, they might be almost as fast). The Civic LX gained 9 hp, but also gained about 100 lbs, which pretty much wipe out the power gain.

Also, the FORD TAURUS spec you give are wrong. It take 10.6 seconds for the 155 hp Taurus automatic to go to 60 mph, not 8.3 seconds.

Here:

http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/Heraud/Ford/Taurus/2000S.asp

Didn't you think it would be pretty funny how a heavier car like the Taurus, with AUTOMATIC, would be faster than the lighter, Accord, with 5-spd manual? The number you posted are for the 200 hp V6. Come on.

Accleration is universal. It apply to all vehicles that are on the street (unless you think SUV or minivans doesn't need to acclerate, or doesn't share the same road as you do). Acceleration measure applys to all, whether it's cars or minivans or SUV (especially SUV, since you are trying to be MANLY).

Corolla, Neon, Cavalier would all smoke the Accord. So by your arguement earlier (saying the slower Camry is "hell"), then the slower Accord must be "hell" to drive. It's logical isn't it?

"I say "Camry is outmatched" not because of sales but because the competition beats it on acceleration figures, sometimes handily".

Wait, the Camry is as fast as the Accord DX and VP. So is Accord also out matched?

What's the Camry's major competitors? Accord and Taurus (and Maxima if you want). The Maxima is fastest, Camry is tied with Accord DX/VP, and Taurus comes in the slowest. So how is the middle of the pack equate "out matched"?

"You can compare my EXL 5-spd to an LE V6 5-spd if you like, but I don't think you'll find much grounding when it comes to comparing $$$." yeah, you get what you pay for. You save money by buying an I4, and you pay more for a more powerful V6. Basic logic here.

Oh well, you are not convincing anyone here. Even your Accord friend are saying Camry if fine in term of accelertion. I'm just going to let it be with you, feel what ever you want. When the new Camry with it's superior engines arrive in 6 months, you can try this arguement again (with the role reversed).

venus537 · February 2001

You're not so convincing yourself either. But you're probably correct that the redesigned Camry 4-cylinder will be on par or better with the Accord 4-cylinder in terms of acceleration. But then again, the Accord will be redesigned the following year. These cars always seem to be leap frogging each other. This is good for the consumer.

The new Celica finally leap frogged the Integra, but that will only last till later this year when the new Integras come rolling out.

getz1 · February 2001

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to drive home? I was lost after we started comparing the acceleration of minivans and SUVs to the accord and camry. I believe it was motor week that did a comparo between accord and camry in their last issue, and they stated something along the lines that they had to pull over and pop the accords hood and make sure they didn't give them a v6 test car by accident, because the acceleration was such a difference between the 4cyl camry and accord. They finished the comparison by adding that the accord is a much better value, besting camry in just about every major category. For Pete's sake, how many years has accord been on car & driver's 10best list? Point being, that as the two models currrently stand the accord offers more for the money. When the new camry comes out, I'm sure this will be reversed, at least for one model year. The camry is a very nice car, immaculately put together, as reliable as a car can get, but the same can be said about the accord, and the accord offers a little more room and better acceleration. I agree that acceleration is not a huge issue in regards to family haulers, but if two versions are equally capable in comfort and capacity, I believe that a significant performance edge, along with lower price (in favor of the accord) will be major selling points to people who do their homework before making a purchase. Don't get me wrong, I don't worship honda, in fact I think that the customer service departments at the few dealers I have frequented tend to stink. I found infiniti to be much more satisfactory in that regard. However, the point of buying a honda is that hopefully you don't need to visit the service department aside for routine maintenance, and when you decide its time for a new ride, you can get pretty decent resale. I shopped both and liked camry, but I ended up liking accord a whole lot more (so I bought two of em). I can say that both of the 00'EXV6s (one coupe and one sedan) have been problem free and a joy to drive, and the acceleration of the v6 at highway speeds is amazing for a "family" car. If anyone is shopping accords, and is debating between the ex or lxv6, opt for the v6 it a much better value. But, if you can squeeze it into your budget go for the exv6 it is an amazing deal when compared to the competition. One final note, being 25 y.o., the camry made me feel like I was driving my dads car. So I guess accord and camry appeal to different age demographics as well.

wenyue · February 2001

venus537 and getz1:

I'm a scientist by profession. I am not convinced of anything that lacks data. I don't like it when people start making up data, or start to dispute mathmatical constants.

Such as someone trying to claim that the Civic is faster, even though the only data that existed showed that the Civic was SLOWER than the Camry.

Or trying to dispute the case of acceleration time. Time in seconds is a math mathmatical value. It doesn't change because the mass or matter involved changes. 10.5 seconds is faster than 10.6 seconds is faster than 11 seconds. Camry is as fast as the Accord DX/VP, and faster than the Taurus baseline engine, is faster than macho SUVs, and saftey focused minivans. Know that FACT, one can not claim that Camry is "hell"ishly slow.

Automotive magainzes such as Car and Driver, and Autoweek are for the car enthusiasts, and hence naturally performance oriented. I agree, the Accord is sportier than the Camry. Never disputed that. It's only natural for the magazines to put the Accord first in that case. But when comes to FAMILY oriented magazines, Camry often ranks ahead of the Accord. Camry has been ranked ahead of the Accord by Consumer Report for ages now. The reason is simple, they value the ride comfort and noise level at the top of the list. In that case, it's not hard to see Camry comes out winning year after year.

While Accord is often a better value that's not always the case. Accord DX is a better value than the Camry CE. The best selling Camry LE with VP is a tad better value than the Accord LX (we have ran the calculations a million times before). But Accord EX-V6 is a better value than the Camry LE-V6, with the exception that manual transmission isn't available on Accord V6's.

I'm not blind to the facts. But I don't like it when people try to alter it. Camry I4's acceleration is NOT "outmatched", as I have demonstrated time and time again. 10.5 seconds is 10.5 seconds. It's not faster than the Accord LX, but it's as fast as the Accord DX/VP, and it's faster than the Taurus base V6, and we are not even thinking about the numerious SUV and minivan yet. Also, the Corolla is faster than the Accord. Would that mean the Accord is slow? No, I wouldn't say that. Comparison is made between 2 values, and by changing one of the value, the comparision for the other changes also. In the same note, everything compared to a Corvette is a slow turtle, and everything compared to the new hybrid-electric car is a speed demon.

"I agree that acceleration is not a huge issue in regards to family haulers..."

Agreed, see we all agree. The Camry acceleration if fine for a family car by market standard. It's no race winner, but it's enough to end up middle of the pack.

That's the whole point.

P.S I'm 25 years old also. I prefer the Camry's driving characteristics. The Accord gives my butts a rough work out over the pot holes that are every where in Michigan. Camry feels like it's riding on rail, with only muted "fummp" over the pot holes.

The Camry is undisputably the much quieter car. Car and Driver, in their comparsion test, openly admitted that even though they are a magazine for the enthusiasts, they admired the Camry's quality and the quietness, which had not peer. And I believe that's THE major reason why Camry is so popular, short of a luxury car, there is no other car than can tough it in term of refinement.

sebring95 · February 2001

I'll go along with you in the above post. No matter what anyone says, I don't believe the majority of buyers are going to look at the two cars and buy one because it's a second quicker to 60mph. Some will obviously be concerned about power, but I don't see it being a BIG issue in this price range, just another [non-permissible content removed] for tat.

I've only owned V6 Camrys and a coworkers wife absolutely loves my 97. She had a 96 Accord EX and traded for a 99 Camry I4. I just cringed when she told me she bought the 4cyl., but she absolutely loves it. Says it's soooo quiet and comfortable, and looked at me funny when I asked her if it had enough power. Neither 4 banger would ever suit me because I like the power and I'm willing to pay for it.

wenyue · February 2001

sebring95:

You really hit the nail on the head. If you look at this forum, since the very beginning, about 90% of the several thousand posts are spent between the Camry and Accord fans doing the [non-permissible content removed] for tat.

It's not really all that strange. Since the two cars both got it's own advantages over the other, both have adoring fans, both have rough the same number of buyers, it's hard not to get into little arguement.

I can sum up the whole forumn pretty much as follow:

Accord fan: My 4 cylinder is faster than yours, your car is slooooooooooow.

Camry fan: Oh yeah? My car is 10 decibels quieter than yours, your car is noisssssssssssy.

Camry fan: My car got a more comfortable ride than yours. You car is stiff as hell.

Accord fan: Oh yeah? My car is sportier than yours, you car drives like marshmallow.

Accord fan: My car is better looking than yours.

Camry fan: no way, my car is better looking than yours.

Accord fan: no, I'm better than you...

Camry fan: no, you do not. I'm better than YOU...

Errh. Ever notice how quiet this forum is normally? All is quiet, until someone stirr up an arguement with some silly remark. Than it's battle royal for several days, with Honda and Toyota fans try to one up each other, but in the end it's ALWAYS end up as stalemate as both sides wears each other out. Then it's quiet again, no one post anything for a loooooooong time, until some guy with a chip on the shoulder comes long, and starts the whole cycle again.

I have been a member of Edmund's Townhall for almost 3 years now. And the cycle repeats like clock work. It's so grand.

Oops, sort of wandered off there.

Sorry Sebring95.

I think 4 cylinder engines are fine. V6 is definitly more powerful and fun to drive, but its more expensive, and sucks up more fuel.

With that said, I'm in favor of V6 myself. I like to ski, and V6 has its advantage at higher elevation. The new Camry, with the 220 hp Lexus engine will be sweet. It's a Lexus engine!!! All the more reason to get one. I can't wait.

sobers · February 2001

I missed the better part of the thread I guess but here I am after a long gap of 2 days !

)

Wenyue: It is just silly to compare Civic's 0-60 with Camrys. Civic is an Econocar for God' sake. Why would you like to compare Civic to Camry ? Camry doesn't compete with Civic. Stop doing that. You are just geting anything to justify Camrys 0-60. You don't have to. Point is Camry IS slower than Accord as it competes with it. Camry doesn't compete with Civic. It would be unjustice for a $16K car to outsmart $20K car !! Eventhough Civic Lx come very close or even does 0-60 in what Camry does. Before Toyota increased power on camry from 133 to 136 Edmund's have 11.1 for camry which is even SLOWER than base engine Civic(2000). Again, Shouldn't compare Civic with Camry. You sau Camry & Civic are segment leaders: You are partially wrong !! Camry AND Accord both together are segemnt leaders in midsize category. Civic alone was & is leader in econocar as far sales & competetion goes.

Also Wenyue, Every time you rediculously get Accord DX/VP in to picture. It is almost insane to compare a car which had proposed volume of not more than 20K per annum to Camry CE/LE I4 which comprise of 90% of camrys sale. Accord LX is proper comparision for Camry LE & not the DX as it costs thousands less than both the LE & CE. Wenyue it is rediculous to say that Camry V6 is better value than the Accord V6 as manual is available in Camry V6. This almost insale argument. Camry V6 with manual you can find only on moon !!

not at the dealers lot & certainly not with moonoof & the Leather. EX I4 5 speeds are easily available with moonroof, 6 disc cd changer & Leather. Point is Accord DX/VP is so cheap that it compares to Civic category pricewise. Why would you want to compare it with Camry LE. Comparision should be with the most popular trim lines. Accord I4 does outsmarts Camry I4 in performnce & also value. 2001 Accord LX is much better value as compared to 200 Accord LX with several added features.

sobers · February 2001

Again for the records I would like to say that I did find it OK whever I rented it from Hertz. It is just that when I come from a long trip in rental camry, after N'joying its quiete ride, smooth on freeways (negatives: highly vague on-centre feel, instability to cross-winds at 70mph, freeway passing plan-ahead) I really LOVE to get in my Accord !! Wenyue, not saying that I have a superior car, but Accord's steering is just adorable in this class. PERFECT on-centra feel, less busy on freeways with proper weight & less assist at hoigher speeds makes it a joy to keep it in a straight line on freeways. Ofcourse both Accord/Camry have their advantgaes, it is just that I like my Accord better. specially SE was just too good to pass on at invoice, cd player & 4.9APR !!

wenyue · February 2001

A car is a car. They are all over the road. 0-60 is either ok for the road or not ok for the road. We all drive on the same street, we all make the same turns, merge on the same highways. It doesn't matter whether you drive a Civic or a Camry, or an SUV or a minivan. The acceleration is enough or not enough. (You don't see me bashing Civic LX/DX in the Civic/Corolla forum even though the Corolla is more than a second faster, because I realize even the Civic's acceleration is good enough.)

Hence I'm throwing in the Civic (a compact) and Taurus's (a fullsize) 0-60 to demonstrate the obvious point -- 10.5 seconds, being faster than both, is more than good enough out there. I think you agreed with me earlier. So why are we still on this thing?

"Also Wenyue, Every time you rediculously get Accord DX/VP in to picture."

Is Accord DX/VP an Accord or not? If Honda didn't think their accelation is good enough for the market, they wouldn't have produced it. So it seems that even Honda thinks 10.5 seconds is good enough. So again, why are we still arguing this point?

"It is almost insane to compare a car which had proposed volume of not more than 20K per annum to Camry CE/LE I4 which comprise of 90% of camrys sale." This is what I, and other scientist don't like, making claims with no data just to suit one's opinion. Try to prove it with some data please.

"Wenyue it is rediculous to say that Camry V6 is better value than the Accord V6 as manual is available in Camry V6. This almost insale argument."

Why is it insane? It cost money to open up another production line for the 5-spd manual V6. Honda obviously didn't want to do it. Toyota went the extra mile and did it, and cost them money to do so. And because Toyota went the extra mile, consumers can drive a Camry that does 0-60 at 7.1 seconds. Accord doesn't have that option, Camry does. For someone who wants a 5-spd manual, the worse value would be to have to settle for an automatic. Logical isn't it?

"Camry V6 with manual you can find only on moon !!

"

It's true that the Camry V6 with 5-spd is relatively rare compared to the automatic. But they do exist, and I have seen them on the dealer lots. And worse comes worse, you can always factory order it to your EXACT desire (Honda buyers doesn't have that choice). All it takes is 4-6 weeks.

Camry LE with VP3 has several more features (CD with Cassette, day time running lights, lumber support, Premium sound system, full size tire, keyless entry, power drivers seat...ect) than the Accord LX with ABS. It cost only $224 hundred dollars more, but the extra features are more than worth the money. In that case, Camry LE has a little edge in value.

These cases all have been argued before to death. Honda and Toyota fans take turns bashing each other. Is it my turn now? Should I start saying the Accord is a noisy "hell", or it is "outmatched" by the competitors in term of quietness? (Borroweded words used previously by a Honda fan, can't take the credit).

Come on. It's all just going to be dragged down into another round of shouting match. We all have been there and back. Honda is faster. I agree. Toyota is quieter. You agree. Shall we end this bull that all got started because someone's obvioiusly biased and incorrect statements long ago?

wenyue · February 2001

Just saw your last post. Now I wish I could have tuned down my last post a little.

In the end, I agree 100% with what you said. "both has it's advanatages". There is no winner here. Camry is Accord's arch rival, and Accord is Camry's. People who shop these cars undoubtly tried both, and the end result is a split mid-size market with both camps equally entrenched in their conviction that they got the better car.

I value quietness, since I'm someone who appreciate the "finer" points in life (I don't listen to rap, for example). My life is full of things to do already, and a quiet and soft driving characteristic is something that's fully appreciated by me. Michigan also has one of the worst roads (ranked 6th to last), those pot holes will eat people alive, that's another thing where softer suspension becomes a plus.

Anyway, I can appriciate the Accord as well. While lack the luxury car like ride of the Camry, it's a sportier car. And it's and a good value, no doubt. I think Honda is the only worthy foe for the Toyota right now. (Nissan might make a come back if they do it right).

Remind me, how many posts has it been already since this round started? We veterans of Townhall knows when to stay out of a no-win arguement, hence this forum tends to go without posts for long periods of time. But how did we get involved in this round anyway? I lost track already.

Anyway, there is a bit of interesting statistic I read in the news. Last year (2000), 60% of car buyers used internet to help them during the car shopping process. I wonder how many visited this forum while trying to choose between the two cars. Well, no matter how many visited here, the results from the buyers were still the same, 50/50 split.

venus537 · February 2001

They lost all credibility with me when they rated the Mercury Cougar higher than the Accord V6 Coupe. I prefer Consumer Guide - the Camry and Accord are both rated as "best buys".

The bottom line: the Accord, Camry and Passat are the three best cars in this segment.

wenyue: what kind of scientific work do you do? It's an honor to converse with a scientist.

wenyue · February 2001

A graduate from the University of Texas at Austin, I now work for Pfizer Inc, the world's largest Pharaceutical company right now. I work at their research site at Ann Arbor, Michigan. My title is that of a Medicinal Chemist, but my work mostly involves organic synthesis of new molecules as possible new drug candidates.

And in what field are you participating in? I see that you are in Madison. They have a good chemistry program over there. And I seems to recall that they have a pretty good medical center there as well.

Anyway, don't tell me that you are an biologist.

Just like Honda and Toyota, those of us in the chemistry departments and those in the biological section has tons of jokes about each other.

sobers · February 2001

It is good to be in a company where we converse with scientists !

I am not scientist, I am a programmer, my skills include: C/C++, VB, COM. Also worked in Mainframes: PL/1, DB2, IMS !!

sobers · February 2001

Toyota has manual on V6 due to the traditional availability. Toyota always had manual on v6 from early 90s as their market outside USA required it (on 4Runner, Camry V6 etc). Honda developed V6 just for usa & they didn't find it fit to develope it here. Toyota's manual is sort of a historical availability & it wasn't designed in 97s redesign. So Toyota didn't go a step/mile further as you say but it is just that it was always there. Honda V6 being developed for US market is late 90s is not offered with manual.

Wenyue: Also in my opinion, Camry's owner won't get Camry to do 0-60 in 7.1 Sec. So getting manual on Camry is like contrdicting why you selected it in the first place:)) Quite, Smooth, etc etc (Especially on the V6 models !!)

mwaddo · February 2001

I have been reading the messages on this board for several months, beginning in November while researching for a new car. I ended up with an Accord Sedan EX 5-sp. If the V6 were available with a 5-sp, I would have bought it. I did look at the Camry, and I liked it (I agree with almost everything Wenyue has said), but I just thought it looked dated. While I don't have anything against the softer, quieter ride (in fact, I went to Toyota to drive an Avalon, which I REALLY liked), I decided while still relatively young I wanted to have fun with the 5-sp.

Anyway, I have seen "explainations" for why Honda does not produce a V6/5-sp: No market in USA, would require additional expenditures they may not recover, etc. While all these certainly make sense, I guess I don't understand enough about the mechanics of the cars.

Why can't Honda use their current 5-sp tranny on the V6? Also, does Toyota use 2 different 5-sp's on the Camry? One for the I4 & a different one for the V6?

Just curious. Otherwise, I'm very pleased with my 5-sp EX. Acceleration is more than adequate, the handling is fantastic, it's a tad louder & rougher than I would like, but that's the trade off, and I knew that going in.

leomort · February 2001

and what's wrong with us biologist?

Leo

wenyue · February 2001

The 4 cylinder manual tranny isn't designed to handle that the higher stress of the more powerful V6 engine. Besides, the power output and hence the gear ratio would be totally different between the two engines. So a new 5-spd or at least a redesigned/reinforced manual would be needed if Honda wanted to have a manual for the V6.

Leo:

Nothing wrong being a biologist. My undergrad is actually in Molecular Bio. But I have SEEN the light.

Become a chemist today (I'm just kidding), the job market is hot right now.

hunter001 · February 2001

The Honda Prelude already puts out about 200 hp and is available in a manual. There was also the older Acura Legend's 6-speed manual trans available (which had a power/torque output way over the Accord's, I might add). I do not think that it would be hard to adapt that for the Accord V6.

But I would presume, that a viable market does not exist for a manual transmission for the Accord V6. A few enthusiasts might be persuaded to go in for a manual, but the vast majority of the population, is inclined to go for an Automatic; and those are the people, Honda is targetting. I know of people who had a lot of trouble selling their cars, just because it had a manual transmission. Try to trade in a car with a manual transmission at a dealership, and you will know what I mean - they would drop the price by a couple of grand, just because the car has a manual (Tough for the dealer to sell).

Later...AH

sebring95 · February 2001

Possible the automatic only is emissions related? I know Toyota backed off the manual TT Supra a few years back for emissions reasons.

bgabel1260 · February 2001

I believe every drivetrain combo must be separately crash- and smog- tested, costing the auto maker quite a bit per configuration. It's not just the loss of the car that costs bucks, but all of the ungodly paperwork and regulatory hoopla you have to deal with.

whaddaguy · February 2001

Hey wenyue and sobers,

To answer your question, I am using this forum (and others) to aide me in my pre-owned car serch. I thought I'd weigh in to say the forum is a good tool. Reading about chronic transmission problems in a particular model year, early/late airbag deployment, electrical or other mechanical defects, etc., is helping me to narrow the field.

Ive learnd more here than from Jack Gillis' pathetic reviews!! Yep, some of the feuding here is juvenile, but boys and their toys...

Well, onward to the final purchase. Oh, if yer wondring what I hope to buy, don't get riled up when I tell you. Im down to a Legend LS sedan, Infiniti G20 (I like them, I really really like them), Audi 200, or Lexus ES250/300 - got a couple prospects with the right fit with my budget. Have considered Volvo 740/760 sedan because they run forever and are very safe - generally surpassing Toyota and Honda.

In the SF Bay Area, the Cmrys and Accords Ive seen are pretty thrashed - hi miles and bad trannys. San Jose lots will say any car is in "great" shpe - and ask at or above Kelly bluebook. And people buy! Well, theres a sucker born every minute!

I guess there are fine points to each. Obviously its a matter of personal prefrenec. Both are overrated, IMHO. So thats my story and Im sticking to it. May the best car win. Good luck.

kbconv · February 2001

My wife has a 98 XLE V-6 Camry we bought used for the purpose of a nice "luxury" car we can drive forever. The car is good, but I had an irritating warranty experience with front strut bushings(top I think). The dealer wouldn't replace even though there's a TSB out, said he couldn't hear, I told him when weather got colder they could, sure enough I took it in after warranty(40,000) and they replaced them without even driving it. It may helped that this was after the Ford Explorer lawsuits which I told my wife to mention, along with our new child. Why not fix it the first time? I drive my wife's old 1990 Acura Integra with 190,000 plus miles with only a rear wheelbearing repair and a new exhaust, even the clutch is original. And the service center is great, even put in expensive Freon for my wife for free a couple of summers ago.

OK, next, we are looking for a car for my mom, Drove a used 2000 4 cyl. at a Toyota dealer that was JUNK. I have done all repair work on my "fun cars" (240Z, 340 Challenger, supercharged 95 Mustang) cars and may be a little sensitive but there was rattling suspension noise, exhaust leak, and something else. Next drove a new 2001 4 cyl. Camry LE that sounded and drove OK. Then drove a new 2001 4 cyl. EX Accord that I really liked and would get if I was in the market for that kind of car, except I would just get the LX. Then drove the V6 Accord LE which REALLY felt nose heavy, I preferred the 4 cyl. model.

Oh well, just my .02 worth, no need to disagree as it's just my opinion.

sobers · February 2001

I felt the same way when I test drove V6 Accord/Camry. FWD cars are as such nose-heavy which is made worse by extra weight that V6 has. I was giving a serious thought to 2000 Lx-V6 but ended with I4 SE. Both has 4.9APR that time (not EX-V6!) I guess V6 is great for straight line driving & freeways but is less fun than the I4 in twisties.

denniswade · February 2001

the entire weekend (business trip in Michigan with a couple days to visit my boys), and was once again impressed with the smoothness, quietness and comfort -- it is truly a wonderful family car for the average person. And while I, being the speed freak I am, would opt for the V6, the 4 had plenty of passing power and feels wuite brisk off the line. Let's face it -- this isn't a car to go raod racing in, but that's not what it was designed to do. The people who buy these cars are family people who need a good, dependable car with enough room, comfort and quality to meet their needs -- no more. Both the Accord and the Camry fulfill these criteria, and their differences simply give us a choice -- which I think is a good thing.

sobers · February 2001

I agree 100%. Because of these two arch rivals consumers get very good cars at reasonable price

Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles