Camry vs Accord vs ???
- Thread starter Joe1
- Start date
Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted by joekingcorvette
Get the Honda and don't buy the turbo version. I have owned many Honda's and have had great luck and zero major problems.
ALL Accords are turbo now
This is a good example of the reason that one should not post in a thread without having actually read it.
See my sig.
No turbo in our Gen 10. No transmission either.
Also significantly quicker than a Camry Hybrid and a tad more economical as well.
Originally Posted by joekingcorvette
Get the Honda and don't buy the turbo version. I have owned many Honda's and have had great luck and zero major problems.
ALL Accords are turbo now
This is a good example of the reason that one should not post in a thread without having actually read it.
See my sig.
No turbo in our Gen 10. No transmission either.
Also significantly quicker than a Camry Hybrid and a tad more economical as well.
Originally Posted by Skippy722
"Because Consumer Reports said so." If I was a gambling man I'd place money on them rating similar cars, like the Grand Cherokee and Durango, or 300 and Charger differently even though they use the same parts on the same exact chassis.
Camry gets my vote though. Perfect appliance like vehicle.
Or because nearly every place that tracks long term reliability puts them at the bottom of the barrel. And just because it's the "same chassis" doesn't mean it's packaged the same or even has the same exact components. It's not like the Geo/Corolla where they were indeed the exact same car. If one wants reliability as a top requirement you don't shop at the bottom of the barrel.
Of the 2 I'd go Camry. The Honda engines have major issues and, IMHO Honda has always been vastly overrated.
"Because Consumer Reports said so." If I was a gambling man I'd place money on them rating similar cars, like the Grand Cherokee and Durango, or 300 and Charger differently even though they use the same parts on the same exact chassis.
Camry gets my vote though. Perfect appliance like vehicle.
Or because nearly every place that tracks long term reliability puts them at the bottom of the barrel. And just because it's the "same chassis" doesn't mean it's packaged the same or even has the same exact components. It's not like the Geo/Corolla where they were indeed the exact same car. If one wants reliability as a top requirement you don't shop at the bottom of the barrel.
Of the 2 I'd go Camry. The Honda engines have major issues and, IMHO Honda has always been vastly overrated.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Joe1
.......The concerns l have about the Accord are that they are turbo equipped nowadays and am not sure if they will hold up as well over the long term. Same for CVT vs the 8 speed auto in the Camry.
We went through much the same when we selected the Camry over the Accord last year. The Accord was a very nice car, and still is. However the Camry's non turbo 203 H.P. 4-cylinder, coupled to the more conventional 8-speed automatic transmission over the Accord's CVT, won us over hands down.
I think Honda did itself no favors at all by cancelling the V-6 engine option in the Accord. And replacing it with a lesser performing 4-cylinder turbo, that gets no better fuel economy than the V-6 Camry does. While delivering 50 less horsepower. (Over 300 in the V-6 Camry, to only 250 in the 4-cylinder turbo Accord). In fact, the turbo Accord costs over $1,700.00 more than the XSE trimmed V-6 Camry.
And to top it off, the extra cost turbo Accord has less than 50 H.P. more than the standard, normally aspirated 203 H.P. 4-cylinder that's standard equipment in the Camry. And can be had for over $10K less.
The Accord will sell well in spite of all of this. Because there are a legion of turbo fans out there, that will buy it regardless of it's lesser performance, higher cost, all coupled with no better fuel economy. Because they just love anything with a turbo in it.
I am all about V6's, but the new 2.0T in the Accord out performs the previous 3.6 V6. Quicker to 60, better fuel economy, and more low end torque. Also, I have no problem with a good quality turbo engine.
Originally Posted by Joe1
.......The concerns l have about the Accord are that they are turbo equipped nowadays and am not sure if they will hold up as well over the long term. Same for CVT vs the 8 speed auto in the Camry.
We went through much the same when we selected the Camry over the Accord last year. The Accord was a very nice car, and still is. However the Camry's non turbo 203 H.P. 4-cylinder, coupled to the more conventional 8-speed automatic transmission over the Accord's CVT, won us over hands down.
I think Honda did itself no favors at all by cancelling the V-6 engine option in the Accord. And replacing it with a lesser performing 4-cylinder turbo, that gets no better fuel economy than the V-6 Camry does. While delivering 50 less horsepower. (Over 300 in the V-6 Camry, to only 250 in the 4-cylinder turbo Accord). In fact, the turbo Accord costs over $1,700.00 more than the XSE trimmed V-6 Camry.
And to top it off, the extra cost turbo Accord has less than 50 H.P. more than the standard, normally aspirated 203 H.P. 4-cylinder that's standard equipment in the Camry. And can be had for over $10K less.
The Accord will sell well in spite of all of this. Because there are a legion of turbo fans out there, that will buy it regardless of it's lesser performance, higher cost, all coupled with no better fuel economy. Because they just love anything with a turbo in it.
I am all about V6's, but the new 2.0T in the Accord out performs the previous 3.6 V6. Quicker to 60, better fuel economy, and more low end torque. Also, I have no problem with a good quality turbo engine.
Originally Posted by Trav
Camry any day, go with the 2.5 4 banger.
Edit: I see someone mentioned Mazda, if you state the car operates in uses salt scratch that one, they rust like crazy on the rear quarters.
Hahahaha, I would say the opposite. I much prefer driving the new Honda Accords. Rent cars all the time, so I have plenty of time in both.
The Accord with the 2.0t and conventional automatic is a spectacular car in just about every way. The Accord has, in my opinion, a higher quality interior that does not look beat up after a few miles.
The 2018 and up Camry rentals look awful, even with few miles. Plus they are noisy, as there is little in the way of insulation.
Camry any day, go with the 2.5 4 banger.
Edit: I see someone mentioned Mazda, if you state the car operates in uses salt scratch that one, they rust like crazy on the rear quarters.
Hahahaha, I would say the opposite. I much prefer driving the new Honda Accords. Rent cars all the time, so I have plenty of time in both.
The Accord with the 2.0t and conventional automatic is a spectacular car in just about every way. The Accord has, in my opinion, a higher quality interior that does not look beat up after a few miles.
The 2018 and up Camry rentals look awful, even with few miles. Plus they are noisy, as there is little in the way of insulation.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Trav
Camry any day, go with the 2.5 4 banger.
Edit: I see someone mentioned Mazda, if you state the car operates in uses salt scratch that one, they rust like crazy on the rear quarters.
Hahahaha, I would say the opposite. I much prefer driving the new Honda Accords. Rent cars all the time, so I have plenty of time in both.
The Accord with the 2.0t and conventional automatic is a spectacular car in just about every way. The Accord has, in my opinion, a higher quality interior that does not look beat up after a few miles.
The 2018 and up Camry rentals look awful, even with few miles. Plus they are noisy, as there is little in the way of insulation.
Toyota's powertrain is also very unrefined. It reminds me of an old GM or Ford product.
Fuel economy is very good, but the engine note is quite unpleasant when you call for much power and the autobox often has trouble settling upon a gear.
This has been our observation with the rental Rav we've been using.
Originally Posted by Trav
Camry any day, go with the 2.5 4 banger.
Edit: I see someone mentioned Mazda, if you state the car operates in uses salt scratch that one, they rust like crazy on the rear quarters.
Hahahaha, I would say the opposite. I much prefer driving the new Honda Accords. Rent cars all the time, so I have plenty of time in both.
The Accord with the 2.0t and conventional automatic is a spectacular car in just about every way. The Accord has, in my opinion, a higher quality interior that does not look beat up after a few miles.
The 2018 and up Camry rentals look awful, even with few miles. Plus they are noisy, as there is little in the way of insulation.
Toyota's powertrain is also very unrefined. It reminds me of an old GM or Ford product.
Fuel economy is very good, but the engine note is quite unpleasant when you call for much power and the autobox often has trouble settling upon a gear.
This has been our observation with the rental Rav we've been using.
4 cylinder Camry.
Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted by WagonWheel
Why not a a used Lexus ES 350? It's basically an up-fitted V6 Camry. A used 3 yr old can be had for less than a new Camry. Get one with a J VIN and it will go forever.
Ever try to work on a transverse V6?
And Toyota's transverse V6 offerings are among the worst!
Most any source of data you look at....True Delta, CR, Dashboard Light, Car Complaints.......you put those together and you'll find an
EXCELLENT reliability record. Sounds like you base your opinion on some prejudice against Toyota. You are certainly not basing it on
real world reliability data out there for all to see.
Something might be difficult to work on, but if you never have to work on it, what's the point of saying it's difficult to work on?
Originally Posted by WagonWheel
Why not a a used Lexus ES 350? It's basically an up-fitted V6 Camry. A used 3 yr old can be had for less than a new Camry. Get one with a J VIN and it will go forever.
Ever try to work on a transverse V6?
And Toyota's transverse V6 offerings are among the worst!
Most any source of data you look at....True Delta, CR, Dashboard Light, Car Complaints.......you put those together and you'll find an
EXCELLENT reliability record. Sounds like you base your opinion on some prejudice against Toyota. You are certainly not basing it on
real world reliability data out there for all to see.
Something might be difficult to work on, but if you never have to work on it, what's the point of saying it's difficult to work on?
Last edited:
Does it have to be a sedan?
To me, many of today's higher seated hatchbacks, wagons, CUVs, etc, are just nicer to be in and use for a daily driver.
My 80yr/old mom has a 2015 Camry LE she's had since new. It's a nice rock solid car that's needed nothing but tires so far. It's nice to drive, but I find it difficult to get comfortable in.
To me, many of today's higher seated hatchbacks, wagons, CUVs, etc, are just nicer to be in and use for a daily driver.
My 80yr/old mom has a 2015 Camry LE she's had since new. It's a nice rock solid car that's needed nothing but tires so far. It's nice to drive, but I find it difficult to get comfortable in.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blueglide88
Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
Ever try to work on a transverse V6?
And Toyota's transverse V6 offerings are among the worst!
Most any source of data you look at....True Delta, CR, Dashboard Light, Car Complaints.......you put those together and you'll find an
EXCELLENT reliability record. Sounds like you base your opinion on some prejudice against Toyota. You are certainly not basing it on
real world reliability data out there for all to see.
Something might be difficult to work on, but if you never have to work on it, what's the point of saying it's difficult to work on?
First of all, I have NO prejudice against Toyota. In fact, they are my favorite car company because they make the best cars. I love Toyota
And valve cover gaskets are something you WILL have to work on eventually! They need to design an intake manifold that doesn't have to be removed in order to access the rear valve cover. Nissan was able to design an intake with cutouts to access the rear spark plugs and coils, but you still have to take the intake off to get to the valve cover gasket.
I am shopping for a car now, and two of the cars at the top of my list are Toyotas. The 2ZZ Matrix/Vibe and the 4-cyl Camry 5-speed.
Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
Ever try to work on a transverse V6?
And Toyota's transverse V6 offerings are among the worst!
Most any source of data you look at....True Delta, CR, Dashboard Light, Car Complaints.......you put those together and you'll find an
EXCELLENT reliability record. Sounds like you base your opinion on some prejudice against Toyota. You are certainly not basing it on
real world reliability data out there for all to see.
Something might be difficult to work on, but if you never have to work on it, what's the point of saying it's difficult to work on?
First of all, I have NO prejudice against Toyota. In fact, they are my favorite car company because they make the best cars. I love Toyota
And valve cover gaskets are something you WILL have to work on eventually! They need to design an intake manifold that doesn't have to be removed in order to access the rear valve cover. Nissan was able to design an intake with cutouts to access the rear spark plugs and coils, but you still have to take the intake off to get to the valve cover gasket.
I am shopping for a car now, and two of the cars at the top of my list are Toyotas. The 2ZZ Matrix/Vibe and the 4-cyl Camry 5-speed.
Camry 100%
My little bro bought a 2013 camry 4 CYL from Hertz @ 45K miles and aside from brakes, shocks, basic maint its still running good @ 120K miles !!
BUT !!! If I was into these cars, I would consider one of these but a 6cyl version, I have driven his 4 cyl many times and it has poor torque power !! but thats me use to driving FULL size GM suvs lol
Dave
My little bro bought a 2013 camry 4 CYL from Hertz @ 45K miles and aside from brakes, shocks, basic maint its still running good @ 120K miles !!
BUT !!! If I was into these cars, I would consider one of these but a 6cyl version, I have driven his 4 cyl many times and it has poor torque power !! but thats me use to driving FULL size GM suvs lol
Dave
Last edited:
Camry. If they aren't "car people" then I'm pretty sure they would cringe at the idea of paying for 89 octane(or more) fuel. Even if Honda says 87 is ok with a turbo, it isn't.
Honda Accord i would buy. Sad that they dont bring it to EU
Originally Posted by marine65
Motor Trend tested the new Accord vs the new Camry.
They concluded that Toyota built a better Camry but Honda built the better car.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. The Honda is a better car.
Motor Trend tested the new Accord vs the new Camry.
They concluded that Toyota built a better Camry but Honda built the better car.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. The Honda is a better car.
Originally Posted by GMguy84
Camry 100%
Agree and around here the Honda dealers have so much inventory they have to store a ton of cars on off-site storage lots. Meanwhile at the Toyota dealer inventory looks like it's half full. They are even parking the cars sideways to make it look fuller than it really is. And this is at a newer high-volume dealership.
Camry 100%
Agree and around here the Honda dealers have so much inventory they have to store a ton of cars on off-site storage lots. Meanwhile at the Toyota dealer inventory looks like it's half full. They are even parking the cars sideways to make it look fuller than it really is. And this is at a newer high-volume dealership.
Originally Posted by SatinSilver
Originally Posted by GMguy84
Camry 100%
Agree and around here the Honda dealers have so much inventory they have to store a ton of cars on off-site storage lots. Meanwhile at the Toyota dealer inventory looks like it's half full. They are even parking the cars sideways to make it look fuller than it really is. And this is at a newer high-volume dealership.
Maybe the Toyota dealer was smarter than the Honda dealer and ordered less sedans.
Cars are tanking.
Originally Posted by GMguy84
Camry 100%
Agree and around here the Honda dealers have so much inventory they have to store a ton of cars on off-site storage lots. Meanwhile at the Toyota dealer inventory looks like it's half full. They are even parking the cars sideways to make it look fuller than it really is. And this is at a newer high-volume dealership.
Maybe the Toyota dealer was smarter than the Honda dealer and ordered less sedans.
Cars are tanking.
Camry is nice but Honda is better car; on the other hand a peace of mind goes more along with Camry than Accord; Do not forget Mazda too
we own 16 CRV and although it is not perfect car, in our 30 months of its ownership, no single light bulb did go out; so very happy with the purchase though
we own 16 CRV and although it is not perfect car, in our 30 months of its ownership, no single light bulb did go out; so very happy with the purchase though
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
We have our 3rd (2009) and 4th (2018) Honda AccordEXls in the garage now. Prior to these we had a 2002 (18yrs) and a 1997 (5yrs) and they all were a pleasure. Minimum cost to upkeep. That said .... My next car will not be any other Honda. They have screwed over their loyal customer base with these newer GDI engines and will not do anything to make it right for folks. Will they down the road? Maybe but I do not trust them to anymore. I will look at Volvo / Toyota / Mazda / Subaru next.
