Last post on Dec 25, 2011 at 1:37 PM
You are in the Honda Accord
What is this discussion about?
Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Sedan
Jul 13, 2001 (9:53 pm)
You have gotten the prices thing down to a science! Unfortunately you only bothered to check one source. Which obviously seems to have the largest price spread. I would urge you to check an even more reputable source, say......KELLY's BLUE BOOK, you would probably find that source more accurate, since that is what, *ahem*; we dealers use. They list price ranges for each car. And since I don't like to pay high prices I only noted the low price of said 1998' vehicles.
Accord LX----- 9900
Civic LX-------- 7950
Corolla LE---- 7200
See, I too can play the numbers game. And I off course chose to quote the most beneficial numbers, too me anyways.
Sobers; I didn't intend to argue with you the exact prices of new and used Accords and Camrys. I only wanted to state the reasons why I think the Accord has yet to prove itself, worthy of being compared to the Camrys. In the process I got to expound all the dubious distinctions of the Accords, the Accords that I know anyways. After reading my many explanations above of why and how I would chose to rate a car it seems you want to tell me that my personal views are wrong. If I didn't like my Accords due to their terrible transmission, you chime "...but they cost less and resale higher". I say my Accords are rough after a few years and are noisy inside, again you say"...but they cost less and resale higher". I say.....well, you get the idea. Everything I've stated are experiences and after hearing from all my friends who owns Accords, I tend to believe them as facts. Losing a few hundreds up front and a few hundreds from the backend does little to sway the argument that Camrys are ahead of Accords. If we tally all the positives, and all the negatives of the two cars the Camry will still be ahead. I like to keep my cars forever except for the reasons stated above in previous posts, which the Accords seems to excel in.
Since Toyota has sold tens of millions of Camrys and Honda has done the same with the Accords, 10 to 20 thousands difference in sale is of little importance. Therefore sales numbers has little bearing in this argument. If it did then I would guess that you bought a Taurus in 1990. All the reasons I believe I should pick a Camry over an Accord may be different from other people, which shows why Accords retains a slightly higher resale value. What does that tell us: people hold other factors more important than I would. Sporty ride for one example. Big deal. We have already established the Camry having a superior transmission, more reliable-see rear main seals in above posts, a better gas mileage, a tighter interior-does not creak, made of better interior materials, a quieter interior, a quieter engine, a smoother engine, lacks the dangerous rear strut design, and especially important-easy to maintain personally (one big reason why my Accords needs to see its technician, for oil changes), ages much better, holding its new car feel longer, and most important-I like em better. But others don't hold these qualities as dear as I do and so used Accords cost more. But then don't forget what I have mentioned about two and three year old Camrys that floods the market from commercial sectors. Also I would like to point out that you have a habit of only mentioning late model used Camrys and Accords. I can only surmise that this is due to the bottoming out of the price difference of the two as more years past which would go against your argument.
Your quote on the acceleration time of Accords versus the Camrys is quite optimistic and ambitious to say the least. But I shall let you win that one,because it is of little value to me, nor do I care enough. I am sorry if this is getting a bit long, but I'm sure you will read it in its entirety because I get the sense that you seem to feel very passionate about this argument. That is fine, it is nice that you find Accords worth while. But Please don't just diregard all the other issues regarding Accords. You like to save $1000-2000 rather than buying a Camry where I don't mind spending a bit more and having my investment retain its quality throughout my owner ship. Eventhough in resale, they are worth a tad bit less when compared to its biggest competitor. BMW has a lower resale value than Lexus comparetively. I doesn't mean that much if you are happy with your purchase and it still runs years from now. Thanks for opening my eyes about the resale differences though.
#603 of 2813 Accord vs. Camry
Jul 14, 2001 (9:08 am)
#604 of 2813 Accord vs. Camry
Jul 14, 2001 (9:10 am)
Cheaper? --- Accord;
Better quality, better reliability and a better car? --- Camry!!!
#605 of 2813 THERE YOU GO!
Jul 14, 2001 (9:25 am)
As Camry fan in so many words and ever so eloquently puts it: Cheaper? --- Accord;
Better quality, better reliability and a better car? --- Camry!!!
That's about as definitive an answer as anybody can Truthfully and honestly say. Camryfan where have you been the last couple of days, you could of saved me from a couple of pages of typing!
Sobers after this you must admit defeat. I mean, how can any sane person deny and refute such an overwhelming testimonial. I think I can hear your last wheezing breath. We'll never forget cha! LOL!
#606 of 2813 RipinRocket
Jul 14, 2001 (9:52 am)
I appreciate your candid and objective comments. My personal take on the Accords is that I am very pleased that Accords hold their value even after all their shortcommings. I will benefit in two ways. First, when I unload my Accord I will get more for it. Who can argue with that! Second, it will ultimately boost up the Camry resale value if I should ever find anyone that wants my 250k mile Camry more than I do. Accords are decent cars, but I just can't get over the rediculous transmission and the thousands of dollars that I' ve sunk into mine due to the rear main seals. I hope yours is treating you well. You also said that your V6 Accord has rough shifting, if that is true then I am even more annoyed with Honda. Even domestic and Korean cars shift better than their transmission. We didn't pay prime dollars for second rate engineering. I have driven many old Accords amd Camrys, and the fact is: as Accords get old their engines gets loud and the car shakes in an un-Honda-like manner. Good luck to you!
Jul 14, 2001 (10:49 am)
I think that the Accord is an all around SLIGHTLY better car, just about every magazine will say that the Accord is better than the Camry, sans Consumer Reports. The Accord has better road feel, a little less spartan interior, and has slightly better styling in my opinion. When you Compare the 4 cylinder models, which are the best seller of both, the Accord outshines the Camry in performance. My family has had 6 Accords in all, my mother had 2 (1984,1992), Grandma had 2(1985, 1991) and my aunt had 2 (1989, 1990). They all were great cars; my neighbors love Camrys, about 5 people in my neighborhood have had a Camry. Both cars are great, the Camry may use slightly better interior materials in the newer models than the Accord, but both are equally reliable, The Camry just a little more so. The transmissions my shift a little rough, but it actually never bother any of my family members (3 of the Accords were 5 speed manuals).
Now that I am in the market for a new car, I am considering just about every midsize to near-luxury car under the U.S sun. Camry and Accord are both on the list.
At least we are not comparing the Taurus in this comparison, it outsold both the Accord and Camry this month, but it ain't the better car IMO.
Jul 14, 2001 (10:53 am)
In the latest Motortrend, the Accord EX ULEV was picked as the best Midsized sedan for $25,000. They call the Accord the benchmark of the Class, and so does Car and Driver, the Accord is the longest running car on the Ten Best List. I don't know about next year, when the new Camry is available, which is really interesting to me.
Jul 14, 2001 (3:33 pm)
When cars critics write articles and test out new cars they tend to critique mainly superficial categories. They place importance on the here and now. Sure the Accord may rate with a better more technology advance engine. But that is only due to the vvti. Underneath it is the same engine used since 1994 models. When comparing just the core engine, it is no more advance than the camry. Both incidentally is years ahead of any domestic car. Actually I believe the Camry's engine is more refine! For all the reason stated previously above. The other various categories includes styling, outside and inside. Sure the Accord won, but not by much. More importantly however, is how the cars hold up over the years of use. This is not factored into the equation. I can only attest to my own experience, which is probably much informative and in depth than any critics can claim. They all probably drive Cadillacs and BMWs. Go to a used car lot and look at early to mid 90's Accords and Camrys. Then tell me which has a quieter engine, idles smoother, rides better, interior held up better, which has a much quieter interior, smooth transmission, and which transmission whines and stalls when take you foot of the accelerator to brake and the resume. Go on a test drive, hit a bump, see which has parts that rattles more. You'd be surprise. I too have three Accords in the family. Now you will only experience from a test drive. I've had mine for seven years, this is in addition to all the other problems that I have enumerated many times above.
Everyone, I agree the Accords will win any contest that is based a certian style or even first impressions if the categories are tailored for it. The Camry may not win any beauty contest but everything done to it with stay in the same pristine condition much longer than the gimmicky Accord.
I really would like to hear a substantive argument why Accords are better than Camrys. Please no more Voted #1 this or that. No more "vast visibility". I want to hear chronoc problems of Camrys versus Accords. No more subjective comments Please!
Sorry for writing to much today, I'm waiting to go to a wedding and have some time to kill. See Ya!
#610 of 2813 Thai357 : man you are comic !!
Jul 14, 2001 (4:52 pm)
First of all somebody came in to say Camry is better & you started saying I lost the defeat. You have such a nice argument !! Cool !!!
Every car magazine rates accords better than Camry ==> You don't count it !
Accord 4 cyl offers better performance than 4 cyl camry ==> You don't count it !
Accord is atleast 700 bucks less than camry you don;t count it.
Honda takes care of resale better ==> You don;t count it !!
BTW : Dealers use NADA book & NOT KBB....
NADA has 11,500 on 98 Camry LE with 40K miles !!
which almost same as 98 Civic with similar miles except for a few grands.
There are too many Camrys & Corollas seating out there in Rental lots... === You don't count it!
Accord has better visibility than Camry ==> You don't count it!
Accord has much better resale than Camry ==> You don't count it!
Accord has been over MANY/MANy years outsells camry to direct consumers==> You don't count it !!
Even though there are thousands of repeat buyers for accords over the years ==> You don't count it.
Every car magazine does surveys & on every survey Accord comes in top ten & well above Camry (recent Autoweek) ==> You won't count it !!
Accord's interior is much better than Camry's==> You don't count it.
Accord offered VTEC engine from 94 on EX & LX/EX on 98+ but Camry doesn't (even low buck corolla offers it) But again you won't count it.
Accord outruns camry 0-60 by atleast 1.5 to 2 sceconds 0-60 ==> That is not imp for you !!
Accord is more spacious ==> Doesn't count !!
You don't want to hear any magazine's review. Even mundane test driving Autowordweekly (now monthly) rated Accord better than Camry...doesn't count.
IMP: WHICH BACK STRUT design you talk about ?? Accord is rated as well as camry for safety/crash tests.... FROM WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFO ?? It is just rediculous !!
I wouldn't rate Accord's sportyness as a advantage over Camrys quiteness. This is the diff between these two cars. Accord is more involving with feedback thru supension/steering & Camry is more isolating. So this basic difference is personal, for you its camry for me its Accord....
I didnot buy Accord because it was less costly. When I got my Accord Camry had rebate of 1000 bucks !! I got Accord because I liked it better.
I have driven rental Camrys extensively, 2 times I have driven it 750 miles to-fro Niaraga Falls!!
Two times 600 miles to South Dakota from Minneapolis & coutless 3 hour drives (before I purchased my Accord) Had a old-used car (91 Corolla) so had to rent frequently.
Even 2001 Accord offeres 2 stage Airbags with 7 sensors which even Lexus ES300 doesn't offer..! Let alone the camry ! (could be standrd in 2002 camry though!)
#611 of 2813 hummm Thai357
Jul 14, 2001 (5:00 pm)
"When cars critics write articles and test out new cars they tend to critique mainly superficial categories. They place importance on the here and now. "
Keep them coming man...these statements are very entertaing.
Also you mean so say my friend sold his MY90 with more than 155k miles for $3000 because it idles rought, whines, stalls etc etc etc ????
As I said keep them coming....!!! I also ride many times in 91 DX/LX which my friends got 1 year ago for $4400 !! They don't do all these things you said...only regular maintenance thus far.
As I said, Camry/Accord are at the same level when it comes to durability & reliability. They have different phylosophy. Camry tuned more towards older crowds..Hondas in general tuned towards younger crowds...giving importance to handling than smoothness (which don't go together...Atleast in this price range)