Last post on Dec 08, 2013 at 7:45 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#18706 of 20223 Re: Camry vs. Accord ad [cski]
Jul 21, 2013 (4:58 am)
I was specifically responding to benjaminh on a post featuring a Toyota commercial with a Camry piled on top of an Accord and crushing it. That was where the "low road" comment came from.
I understood that from your reply. I think Honda is producing all the cars they can and selling them to individuals while Toyota has a larger production capacity (more than one US factory) and relies on taxi/fleet sales for their numbers. I don't know (and not interested in looking up) the resale values, but one reason the accord historically has held its value better than camry is the fleet sales. When companies get rid of these cars they flood the market and lower the price for all camrys - not just theirs. I remember in 2000 when we bought an accord. A friend of ours who worked at a Toyota dealership suggested we buy an accord. He stated that the camry costs $1,000 more new and in 3 years will be worth $1,000 less than the accord.
#18707 of 20223 Re: Camry vs. Accord ad [wayne21]
Jul 21, 2013 (8:48 am)
It's been an epic battle stretching back for 30 years. As you say, Toyota has the capacity to build a lot, I think up to 500,000 Camrys a year for sale in the USA, although they've never actually sold quite that many. Their top year was about 470,000 iirc, although I'll try to look that up. As you say, the "extra" production, so to speak, goes to rental car companies and that affects resales values.
Hondas top sales year for the Accord was maybe c. 420,000, but that was a long time ago, and I think that might have included a small percentage of imported Accords from Japan. I don't think they usually import more than a very small number from Japan these days, but the recent drop in the yen might change that. I think they are selling every one that they can make in Ohio at the moment.
For the history buffs, here is the history of the sales battle between Accord and Camry in the USA. In the 80s the Accord was way ahead, but slowly and surely the Camry overtook it, in part by selling to fleets and rental car companies:
Toyota Camry: 151,767
Honda Accord: 325,004
Toyota Camry: 186,623
Honda Accord: 334,876
Toyota Camry: 225,322
Honda Accord: 362,663
Toyota Camry: 255,252
Honda Accord: 362,707
Toyota Camry: 283,042
Honda Accord: 417,179
Toyota Camry: 262,531
Honda Accord: 399,297
Toyota Camry: 284,751
Honda Accord: 393,477
Toyota Camry: 297,836
Honda Accord: 330,030
Toyota Camry: 319,718
Honda Accord: 367,615
Toyota Camry: 326,632
Honda Accord: 341,384
Toyota Camry: 357,359
Honda Accord: 382,298
Toyota Camry: 394,397
Honda Accord: 384,609
Toyota Camry: 427,308
Honda Accord: 401,071
Toyota Camry: 445,696
Honda Accord: 404,192
Toyota Camry: 420,451
Honda Accord: 404,515
Toyota Camry: 388,219
Honda Accord: 414,718
Toyota Camry: 431,647
Honda Accord: 398,980
Toyota Camry: 411,088
Honda Accord: 397,750
Toyota Camry: 424,803
Honda Accord: 386,770
Toyota Camry: 429,519
Honda Accord: 369,293
Toyota Camry: 445,808
Honda Accord: 354,441
Toyota Camry: 470,710
Honda Accord: 392,231
Toyota Camry: 434,935
Honda Accord: 372,789
Toyota Camry: 356,824
Honda Accord: 290,056 (2564 Crosstours)
Toyota Camry: 327,804
Honda Accord: 311,381 (28,851 Crosstours)
#18708 of 20223 Motor Trend on Camry
Jul 21, 2013 (10:04 am)
The Camry is probably the least expensive midsize car you can get, and there some good things you can say about it. But the last time I had one as a rental I was not at all impressed. And I'm not the only one. Here's what Motor Trend said in a 6 car midsize car comparison test several months ago. The Camry was 5th:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1212_2012_2013_midsize_sedan_comparis- - on/viewall.html
"....The competition has crept up, though. And the Camry itself is -- dare we say it? -- showing signs of weakness. True, the basics are still there: a genuinely huge and inviting rear seat, impressive real-world fuel efficiency (we observed 26.1 mpg), a full complement of conveniences, and aggressive pricing ($25,570 base for the topline XLE). So why aren't we in love?
Ask Febbo: "This car is just so cynical. Horribly executed, and not a drop of passion anywhere. Interior looks like it was designed by the accounting department. Monochrome display for the HVAC system could have been developed in the '70s. The knobs are cheap, the buttons are cheap, everything is built to the lowest price."
Febbo isn't alone. Writes Seabaugh: "Did Toyota even try? Seems like they just phoned it in. Cabin has way too many hard plastics, a shoddy infotainment system, a dash so shiny it reflects into the windshield in direct sunlight. This is the McDonald's of cars: billions and billions served. But that doesn't mean it's good."
Motor Trend said some even more critical stuff after that....
#18709 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [benjaminh]
Jul 21, 2013 (8:55 am)
I would not refute motortrend's writing. Of the midsize cars we've checked out, the camry easily had the cheapest interior. I think most of the cars on the Toyota lot had really cheap interiors. If one is buying a car solely for reliability, perhaps the camry is a good idea because it can be had at a good price. But that's about it. I looked at the USAA website for my area and I can buy a comparable accord for about $500 more than a camry and that's because the camry has been discounted so much. IMHO - the accord is worth far more than the $500 difference. In fact, I think the accord is probably worth $2500 to $3000 more than the comparable camry BEFORE all the discounting.
#18710 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [benjaminh]
Jul 21, 2013 (9:57 am)
I am pretty sure the least expensive new midsized sedan (as defined in this discussion, not as defined only by EPA interior volume) right now is the Avenger, followed by the 200. I've seen new Avengers, decently equipped, advertised in my area for under $16k... and that's before any negotiating. Similarly for the 200s. I'm pretty sure you can't get a new Camry for $16k.
Of course, you get what you pay for.
#18711 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [backy]
Jul 21, 2013 (10:03 am)
Wow. That is cheap for the 200 and Avenger. I'm not sure I've ever even seen one of those in the flesh. No wonder more than 50% go to rental companies and fleets! I wonder what they get them for? 15k?
The cheapest Camry I saw advertised recently in Louisville was for $18,990. And so, yeah, that's a lot more than a 200. But as you say, you get what you pay for. As cheap as the Camry seems in places, I bet the 200 is that much worse. The base model has a 4 speed auto (??) which is a sign it's going into your local Budget if not Rent a Wreck...
#18712 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [benjaminh]
Jul 21, 2013 (10:34 am)
If Toyota can get away with a 4 speed automatic on its redesigned 2014 Corolla base model, maybe Chrysler figures it can get away with a standard 4AT on the base trim of the old 200, with the 6AT available as an option (and standard on all other trims). I'll bet both of those low-end trims are destined only for rental car lots, or at least most of them are.
Chrysler really does need a new mid-sized sedan. They did a pretty good job on the Dart, so that gives hope for the successor to the 200.
#18713 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [wayne21]
Jul 21, 2013 (10:49 am)
wayne wrote: "In fact, I think the accord is probably worth $2500 to $3000 more than the comparable camry...."
I think you're probably right. And the Accord probably costs Honda maybe something like $1000-2000 more to make than a Camry.
Back in 2009, in the depths of the financial crisis, the President of Honda told the Civic team to take something like $1000 off the cost of the 2012 Civic. They did, but then the 2012 Civic was justly criticized for being cheap in some obvious ways. The President himself took the blame, and told the Civic team to go back to the drawing board and see how to put c. $1000 back into each car to make it better. This involved better plastics, more sound insulation, better steering, better suspension components, thicker glass, nicer styling, etc. But they only raised the price something like $100 bucks, which doesn't seem like it would make financial sense. But the 2012 Civic was only selling with big rebates, while the 2013 Civic is selling with much smaller rebates. I'm not sure the profit level per car changed, but Honda effectively moved the Civic upmarket.
The 2013 Accord was also an attempt by Honda to move upmarket, because the KIA Optima and Hyundai Sonata and some other cars had already moved upmarket a few years earlier. The Optima looks amazingly classy for a midsize car, inside and out, and has great engineering and standard equipment. Plus they are selling with only small rebates.
Normally a "halo" car is something like a Corvette, which may be profitable in an of itself, but more importantly gives prestige to the brand. I can't find the link, but there was some Honda executive that described the 2013 Accord as their "halo" car. At first, I thought he might be misusing that word, but then as I saw the whines and complaints from Acura fans at places like vtec.net, and I saw what he meant. Normally, the best and newest tech for halo cars starts at the high end cars and brands and moves down to the high volume models in a few years. But Honda, to the anger of some Acura fans, has put some of the best stuff they have on the Accord first, before Acura, like the direct injected engines, the lane watch, etc. Plus, they moved down a fair amount of stuff that used set Acura apart, like chrome door handles, etc. So a base Honda Accord not only gets from 0-60 faster than an Acura TSX, but it gets better mpg, has more high tech stuff, and costs a lot less. No wonder Acura is only doing so-so right now.
But this also means that Honda probably can't really offer the rebates that Toyota has right now for the Camry. If they did, they'd might lose money. Toyota can sell the Camry for less and still make a profit.
#18714 of 20223 Re: Motor Trend on Camry [benjaminh]
Jul 21, 2013 (5:29 pm)
I'm not sure Honda would meet Toyota rebates even if they could financially. Part of their image is high resale. I think that's why even with miniscule (regardless whether they are Bernanke artificial) interest rates, Honda never went below 0.9% while many of it's competitors offer 0% differing from each other only in terms of loan duration at that rate.
#18715 of 20223 Re: Camry vs. Accord ad [benjaminh]
Jul 22, 2013 (11:22 am)
Accord Sport does have power driver seat and power lumbar adjustment.
I got the manual, so can't comment on the paddle shifters.
I didn't drive an LX or EX, so can't compare the performance of the upsized wheels and tires, but I will say they have plenty of grip even in the rain, and they are not noisy at all. The OE tires are rated 400 A A, I'm anxious to see how they hold up over the long run. There is plenty of sidewall, so they are not what I'd call "low profile", the ride is not harsh. And there is a nice rubber "lip" built in to protect the wheels from minor scuffs. Also, the sport wheels' gray painted finish hides brake dust nicely.
I'll be honest, the thing I like most about them is they just look cool. The Sport has a nice "stance" compared to the LX/EX. LX 16"s in particular look fairly wimpy, although it's a lot better than the plastic wheel covers on base Accords up through last year. The 17"s, which are the same wheels from EX all the way up to Touring, are a bit bland as well. Sport wheels combined with the dual exhaust, lip spoiler, and moderate chrome trim front, rear, and door handles, and tinted windows, it's a rather upscale look. I've had several comment that it looks much more expensive than it really is (FB photo taken from side had one friend convinced I'd bought a new BMW... haha. Not quite. Although I do see a faint resemblance to the new Lexus GS, if you'll permit the fantasy...)