2013 Altima vs Accord vs Others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: smc733

Based on what I sat in, I wasn't impressed. For one, the moonroof of a Camry I test-drove was rattling non-stop the entire ride. It was definitely closed, but we got it to stop by opening it, and closing it made it come back. We couldn't figure out what it could have been, we even fooled around with the cover, no such luck.

The AC controls are a joke, BEYOND cheap, as is the hideous woodgrain accenting, which has a thick glossy coating that scratches just by looking at it. (There is a metallic trim in the SE model, which is actually nicer). The shift mechanism feels nice, though (that feels ultra-cheap in the 200). Overall, I was not impressed one bit by the interior quality in the Camry.


Why are you even considering the Camry then? You will spend all your time inside the car and if it rattles from brand new, it will just get worse. That would be a deal killer for me right away.

If you are afraid of new tech, then why not test drive some of the outgoing models, like 2012 Fusion, Accord and Altima? What about Subarus? They still have port injected, non turbo engines and regular automatic transmissions. I'm sure you can still find plenty of them, brand new, sitting on the dealers’ lots.


I don't know, I guess I am riding on the "quality/reliability" that people are still touting for Toyota.

I would hate to go last-generation, I'd feel like I'm buying into something that is behind the curve and worth less. I also thought Subaru used CVTs in the Legacy?
 
Originally Posted By: smc733
I don't know, I guess I am riding on the "quality/reliability" that people are still touting for Toyota.

I would hate to go last-generation, I'd feel like I'm buying into something that is behind the curve and worth less. I also thought Subaru used CVTs in the Legacy?


You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either choose the car with the features, looks, and drive-ability that you actually want, or buy a boring penalty box of a car that rattles and makes you feel less than.

All the nice cars have newer tech.
All the older cars are boring, rattle, and feel cheap.

The DI on the Honda and the Mazda both aim the fuel spray directly at the intake valves in order to clean them off. So no deposit buildup like the earlier VW/Audi/Porsche/BMW products.

CVT's have been in use by Altima and Subaru for long enough now that Honda has enough information to use to build theirs easily.

I don't see a reason to leave these choices out, other than you like driving a beige penalty box of a car.

BC.
 
I agree that if you're buying used, THE BODY HAS GOTTA HAVE A SOLID FIT...most all mechanicals can be fixed, looks can be touched up.....but a loose fitting body almost never...too many creaks would drive me crazy...

When I got Kitacamry, the passenger door had an aluminum door quality sound when it was shut...the outer skin had been replaced and whoever did it forgot to glue the sound-absorbing foam pad to the inside...other than that the ride was solid and once the foam was added that nice new-car "thud" returned...

Let your ears be your best judge...and not just for listening to engine quality!
 
I havetah add too, that I think Camry designers should go back to school...

The 05/06 Camry was the epitome of non-descript...boring to some, yes, but its minimalism is intentional invisibility when running down the road....

If being noticed is a praise-worthy virtue here in the US, invisibility is a highly regarded Japanese cultural character trait.

Since 06, all the Camrys stretch to be seen, and I think strain under the pressure to do so, failing in so many ways and from so many angles...

...but that's just me...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter


CVT's have been in use by Altima and Subaru for long enough now that Honda has enough information to use to build theirs easily.


Nissan's first CVT was based on the Subaru Justy's.

Honda Civic HXes were equipped with CVTs in '96, long before Nissan brought a CVT to the US
 
Although I'm still trying to wrap my head around scared of honda DI/CVT but willing to chance a Chrysler 200.

I'm with Bladecutter on this.
 
Originally Posted By: smc733

I would hate to go last-generation, I'd feel like I'm buying into something that is behind the curve and worth less. I also thought Subaru used CVTs in the Legacy?


Well, you're contradicting yourself. By avoiding DI and CVT you are already putting yourself behind the curve. How is buying something that is with regular auto tranny and port injection, but built in 2013 different than buying something from 2012? The only difference would be sheet metal or extra electronic gizmos, things that in my opinion do not count as progress.
Face it, DI is here to stay and judging by the lack of complaints about GM, Ford and Mazda DI implementation, I would say carbon build-up issues are a either eliminated or significantly reduced. Even VW seems to be generating less and less complaints.
I was also not keen on the first DI offerings, but I think most of the issues are now under control. Maybe fuel dilution is still an issue, but at least that can be dealt with shortening the OCI's. CVT transmissions would be the only thing that I would have to think hard about. Nissan CVT's seem to be trouble free, however they are more expensive to repair, so long term ownership would require religious maintenance schedule for the transmission.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ

Well, you're contradicting yourself. By avoiding DI and CVT you are already putting yourself behind the curve. How is buying something that is with regular auto tranny and port injection, but built in 2013 different than buying something from 2012? The only difference would be sheet metal or extra electronic gizmos, things that in my opinion do not count as progress.
Face it, DI is here to stay and judging by the lack of complaints about GM, Ford and Mazda DI implementation, I would say carbon build-up issues are a either eliminated or significantly reduced. Even VW seems to be generating less and less complaints.
I was also not keen on the first DI offerings, but I think most of the issues are now under control. Maybe fuel dilution is still an issue, but at least that can be dealt with shortening the OCI's. CVT transmissions would be the only thing that I would have to think hard about. Nissan CVT's seem to be trouble free, however they are more expensive to repair, so long term ownership would require religious maintenance schedule for the transmission.


Not really, I just mean I don't want to buy a last-generation design language, above all else. For example, look at how dated a 2006 Camry is compared to a 2007, that is where I don't want to be stuck.

I don't really see how avoiding technology that isn't widespread is necessarily a bad thing, I'd prefer not to be a Guinea pig for Honda's first DI, and their first CVT (especially given their less than stellar track record with automatics). I'm honestly more apt to accept DI than a CVT, as DI issues rarely result in failing engines at 100k miles, or even less, like some CVTs, and they don't require frequent, expensive fluid changes.

I'm also not sure why a 200 is a gamble, it is still thousands less even with a lifetime Maxcare warranty, direct from Chrysler Group.

Basically:
200 - standard tech but so-so gas mileage/reliability
Camry - Rattling, boring, dated, ugly penalty box
Accord - Risky first-gen DI/CVT
Altima - Tons of complaints about the CVT on the 2.5 for the 2013 model
 
Originally Posted By: cchase
This is not Hondas first CVT.


That is true, though the civics with them, IIRC, didn't have a great track record, and this is the first application in this segment.

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
It sounds like the Malibu could potentially solve all the issues lol.


I plan on checking one out tomorrow, actually!
 
Originally Posted By: smc733
Not really, I just mean I don't want to buy a last-generation design language, above all else. For example, look at how dated a 2006 Camry is compared to a 2007, that is where I don't want to be stuck.


I am astonished anyone would care.
I purposely bought the 2011 Civic when the 2012 was coming out because it had good incentives. Well that and I liked the generation better than the new one. I think it looks a lot better.

There is nothing wrong with prior generations and I think in Toyota's case they are the ones people should be after anyway, as the new stuff all seems to be weak sauce.
 
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Originally Posted By: smc733
Not really, I just mean I don't want to buy a last-generation design language, above all else. For example, look at how dated a 2006 Camry is compared to a 2007, that is where I don't want to be stuck.


I am astonished anyone would care.
I purposely bought the 2011 Civic when the 2012 was coming out because it had good incentives. Well that and I liked the generation better than the new one. I think it looks a lot better.

There is nothing wrong with prior generations and I think in Toyota's case they are the ones people should be after anyway, as the new stuff all seems to be weak sauce.


I'm not surprised at all because when it comes to looks there are no clear cut winners.
I'm just the opposite of smc733. I actually prefer the 2003-2006 model year Camry over the newer iterations. I know it looks boring and almost invisible even when it debuted, but that's the appeal to me. The looks deliver what the car delivers, boring, reliable, A to B commuter that does not attract any attention. On the other hand, the new Camry's look hints that there is something going on as far as having a character, but it is still just as boring appliance as the outgoing model. That is why I don't like the current Sonata and Optima. They look great and sporty but cannot deliver what the looks are promising.
But this is my preference. I like the sleeper look and rather have a great performing car with ordinary looks than a fast looking car that falls flat on its face when you push it through corners. Other are the opposite.
 
Check out the Subaru....I drove all of the cars you mentioned in 2012 (Camary, Accord, Mazada, Kia, Hyundia, Suzuki, and Chevy) and picked the Subaru. If you are concerned with the CVT, you can get a manual with the 4 cylinder or a regular auto with the 6 cylinder.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Any update available? Did you check the Malibu out or what?


I didn't get a chance to do so the other day, but I plan on it Friday.

Originally Posted By: Picky1
Check out the Subaru....I drove all of the cars you mentioned in 2012 (Camary, Accord, Mazada, Kia, Hyundia, Suzuki, and Chevy) and picked the Subaru. If you are concerned with the CVT, you can get a manual with the 4 cylinder or a regular auto with the 6 cylinder.


Problem with that is gas+extra cost puts the 6cyl out of my price range, and the manual is definitely out for my city driving. I am 100% OK with a CVT as far as how the car drives, I am just really wary about their long term reliability, and the expensive maintenance/replacement costs for them. Otherwise, I'd be driving a 2013 Accord right now.

EDIT: After scrutinizing the 200, the fuel economy is too poor, and the bodywork feels plastic and low-budget even compared to my Corolla, so I think that is out, too.
 
Last edited:
Traditional auto transmissions aren’t bullet proof….I am on my 2nd trans on my Wife’s Honda Odyssey and this one is starting to feel odd so we might be looking at a third. You might just have to accept the CVT setup as they seem to be the way the majority of the manufactures are going to squeeze out additional fuel milage.

I took some comfort knowing that Subaru was one of the first to utilize CVT’s all the way back in the 80’s with the Justy. That coupled with my experience with my two prior Subaru’s and their build quality and reputation eased me concerns.
 
Quote:
The DI on the Honda and the Mazda both aim the fuel spray directly at the intake valves in order to clean them off.


Thanks for the information, Bladecutter.

Any chance you could link to this information? I'm not doubting you - I want to learn more about this, especially since I own a Honda with DI.

It was/is my understanding (which I can't link to) that Mazda fights intake valve deposits by maintaining a high intake valve temperature.

I have not been able to find any info on Honda's implementation.

Thanks to you or anyone who can help.
 
Originally Posted By: oily boyd
Quote:
The DI on the Honda and the Mazda both aim the fuel spray directly at the intake valves in order to clean them off.


Thanks for the information, Bladecutter.

Any chance you could link to this information? I'm not doubting you - I want to learn more about this, especially since I own a Honda with DI.

It was/is my understanding (which I can't link to) that Mazda fights intake valve deposits by maintaining a high intake valve temperature.

I have not been able to find any info on Honda's implementation.

Thanks to you or anyone who can help.



I'm interested in this as well, because if I can put aside the CVT for the Accord, it would be nice to know the DI won't be a problem, either.
 
Bladecutter will have to provide a diagram as the idea of DI is to direct the fuel into the squish area and I cannot see how the injector could spray towards a valve.

Does not compute, not at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top