First of all, I've never ever driven a Honda, so I cannot speak from any experience.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of say a Honda Accord vs. the Camry?
I've heard my co-workers say something about Hondas needing a "valve job" around every 100,000 miles, but I could be wrong...
Both are good. Honda is an interference engine. If the timing belt breaks you may destroy the engine. Toyota has very few belted engines that are interference type.
Actually a lot of the new engines are interference. The newer 3MZ-FE (Camry, Solara, Sienna) is interference and blet-driven, as is the 2UZ-FE (Tundra). Everything else right now is a chain. I think. Someone will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
Hard to believe, but true -- firstname.lastname@example.org typed:
Those were the two vehicles it came down to when my wife and I were test driving for our next car back in the fall of '04. There were four reasons we chose the Camry:
1. Quieter -- but just barely so
2 Fit -- sitting in the Camry just felt more natural to us
3. Price -- Toyota had fixed pricing; no dickering required
4. Salesman -- Arlynn Ness at Toyota of Rochester (MN) is the BEST
The overall quality, drive-ability and feel of the cars were pretty much a dead heat. The Accord had a performance edge until we test drove the Camry SE model with the bigger V6. Maybe next time we'll choose an Accord . . . or a completely different car 'cause we're keeping the Camry at least ten years . . . .
I have driven both but older ones and not the latest models. I felt Accord was more sportier with better suspension but a lil bit louder inside the car. Camry on the other hand has very soft suspension but more quiter inside. So better handling in case of Accord. Also Camry is slightly bigger I mean the trunk. I have a 1999 Camry but my next purchase will be Accord or something else unless Camry hybrid is just too good to resist. Also I didnt like the look of camrys ie 2000-2006 models. But the latest 2007 camry looks a lot better. Acoord on the other hand looks much better almost all the models.... Anyways looks are a personal preference. Good luck with the decision because I know it can be a difficult one. Ciao!!!!
We have both in our family. My son has an '04 Camry SE 2.4 engine. I have an '04 Accord EX with a 2.4 engine. Both engines are chain driven double overhead cam engines. Both cars are absolutley trouble free in 2 and a half years of driving. Performance is very close on these cars, But my son and I both agree my Honda holds a very slight handling edge. But, it is also a little noisier. As far as a Honda needing a valve job at 100,000 miles--- I dont think so. I think it is a matter of preference rather than if one is better than the other. Both are excellent cars and both will last a long time. Scott
zonie, 3/31/2006, 10:24:12 AM,
Which one is the better people carrier? That is what they were designed for, right?
If you want the people carrier to be extra safe, go with the Honda for better handling. If you don't care if you lose control some day but prefer quiet, buy the Toyota.
Art, 3/31/2006, 3:17:41 PM,
I want to know about comfort and ergonomics, not handling.
Why do you continue to stay in the Toyota newsgroups, Art? Are you a nobody in the Honda forums?
Art speaks from experience, he lost control, soiled his pants in his wife's Toyota and she's never let him forget it. The quiet part is when she gets tired of screaming in his ear-hole.
Lose control in the Toyota? I wonder in what type of vehicle yo mama lost control, 9 months before you were born?
On 30 Mar 2006 16:08:29 -0800, email@example.com wrote:
Friend of mine bought a new Accord. According to him it was just about a toss up but he thought the Honda had a "sportier" feel, as opposed to the Camry which felt more sedan like.
My wife and I just drove both, and the VW Passat as well. The Accord looked like it was put together well. The I4 was pretty gutless when entering the freeway, however. The suspension was stiffer than the Camry. The stiffness contributed a bit to the noisier sensation in the Accord.
The Camry had a better ride as far as we were concerned. It was quiet and very smooth. We didn't push the I4, but suspect it is little better than the Honda as far as guts. It did not come with the leatherette interior, as did the Honda, and that is something my wife prefers. It will cost a couple of grand to get the leather option.
Both of the cars were of exceptional quality, but to our taste, the Camry was the winner.
The Passat really appealed to me more than either of the above. There were several little items that appealed to us, like the temperature controlled compartment, the locking system with two security levels, as well as the trunk space and locks. And it came with leatherette at a good price. The turbocharged I4 was a freaking giantkiller. Mileage up to the mid 30 mpg range, and screaming performance when you get into the accelerator.
The on-dash MGP meter may not have been accurate but was helpful. The only reason I wouldn't buy the Passat is that it has a reputation of being a bit less dependable and troublefree than the ricers.
A turbocharged Camry ought to be a formidable machine.
Every one should buy at least one VW before they die so they know how unreliable a car can really be. I kept mine 4 months.
wrote in message
I have had two Passats earlier...Both were purchased new. Both were exceptionally good cars and never gave a moment's trouble. However, I have heard from other owners that they have agonized under VW ownership.
Recent reports claim that the Hyundai Azera is a budget 'Lexus'. I haven't considered a Hyundai, probably because of the low reputation that they had.
Has anyone tried out the Azera?