Camry vs Accord ?

It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?

--

73
Hank WD5JFR

I think the decision of Camry or Accord really boils down to preference. My
experience is that the seating position is somewhat different, and the
arrangement of the knobs and switches are also different. I think that all
of the vehicle systems work reasonably the same and share the same
reliability traits. I think the bottom line works out to how you like the
seating position and the arrangement of the knobs and switches. I think you
should compare similar models, both top of the line or both mid line, and
with the same engine - both 4 or both 6 cylinder. Frankly, there was a time
when the Camry top of the line model was in my opinion a better car than the
Accord, but I think the distinctions that made the Camry better have been
incorporated into the Accord.

After all of that, it's your preference for style and comfort that will
drive the bus on this decision.





"Henry Kolesnik" <kolesnik@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TSlke.496$TJ2.258@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...[color=blue]
> It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired[/color]
and[color=blue]
> need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low[/color]
cost[color=blue]
> maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old[/color]
also.[color=blue]
> I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
> better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?
>
> --
>
> 73
> Hank WD5JFR
>
>[/color]

Jeff Strickland wrote:[color=blue]
> I think the decision of Camry or Accord really boils down to
> preference. My experience is that the seating position is somewhat
> different, and the arrangement of the knobs and switches are also
> different. I think that all of the vehicle systems work reasonably
> the same and share the same reliability traits. I think the bottom
> line works out to how you like the seating position and the
> arrangement of the knobs and switches. I think you should compare
> similar models, both top of the line or both mid line, and with the
> same engine - both 4 or both 6 cylinder. Frankly, there was a time
> when the Camry top of the line model was in my opinion a better car
> than the Accord, but I think the distinctions that made the Camry
> better have been incorporated into the Accord.[/color]

Good analysis and good advice.

I drove both the Accord and Camry (both in V6 / automatic trim) this
weekend.

My sense is that the Accord (EX) has a tighter suspension, a
smaller-feeling cockpit, a larger rear blindspot, and a higher-quality
fit and finish. The Camry (XLE) has a softer ride, is quieter, and
smoother shifting. Personally, I'd prefer the Camry for an occasional
use road car (i.e. as used by a retiree).

I agree with Jeff that you should drive both and decide for yourself.

Henry Kolesnik wrote:
[color=blue]
> It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
> need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
> maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
> I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
> better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?[/color]

Both are fine, though they aren't the best as far as initial
cost(pricey to buy). My approach is to find a 3-4 year old
certified model so that the OTHER person ate all of the
main depreciation and then put a chunk in savings for
repairs.

This unfortunately, means that most Toyotas and Hondas
aren't very good deals used, since they hold onto thier
value too well. The ultimate used car would be something
underrated(or dragged down by one other model that has major
problems) and that depreciates fast, so that you can get
a four year old car for half what the new one cost.

Toyota makes one such gem - or rather, it is a Toyota with
a Pontiac label on it - the Vibe. Consider - two perfectly
good cars with only a little sheetmetal difference. A 2002
Vibe sells for ~$8000. The Toyota is $10,000. That sheetmetal
suddenly looks like less of a concern to me...

Both are based off of a stretched Corolla platform and are
every bit as useable as an Accord or Camry, though they are
more Civic/Corolla sized. IME, the flat minvan/truck
interior makes up for that. It folds truly flat and
has the equivalent to a truckbed liner on the surfaces,
plus tiedown points. Cargo capacity is amazing for its size.

Retired people are like college students in that they have
enough free time on their hands and a lot of irons in the
pot as it were, so they are always needing to move or carry
things around - be it the dog to the groomers, or a new
TV set, or clothes to donate, or plants you got from the
nursery, or... I really suggest something like this instead
of a typical sedan.

The Matrix looks a bit better, IMO, though, but the Vibe
has a taller rear end which allows for a slightly bigger
rear opening for cargo. The Vibe also can be had with
a roof rack as standard equipment. The Higher HP engine
model, though, can be had with automatic on the Toyota, IIRC.
The Vibe's high HP version is a 6-speed. Of course, I
hate automatics, so either one is fine for me ;)

I'm planning to buy one or the other in any case, in
three or four months. The 2002s are still too new,
but when the 2006s come out, their price drops a
couple of thousand and you can still get a typical bank
loan on a certified model as it will be 4 years old.
Waiting three months will save me $2,000 or allow me
to get the higher HP engine model. Add in an extended
factory warranty and presto - $8-10K and no problems
for the life of the loan. That the car has 50K on
it isn't a concern since the design is good for 200-300K.

That's probably the best way to obtain truly frugal
transportation, especially if your income isn't as large
as it once was.

"Travis Jordan" <no.one@no.net> wrote in message
news:9Hnke.223758$Sq.221782@fe05.news.easynews.com...[color=blue]
> Jeff Strickland wrote:[color=green]
> > I think the decision of Camry or Accord really boils down to
> > preference. My experience is that the seating position is somewhat
> > different, and the arrangement of the knobs and switches are also
> > different. I think that all of the vehicle systems work reasonably
> > the same and share the same reliability traits. I think the bottom
> > line works out to how you like the seating position and the
> > arrangement of the knobs and switches. I think you should compare
> > similar models, both top of the line or both mid line, and with the
> > same engine - both 4 or both 6 cylinder. Frankly, there was a time
> > when the Camry top of the line model was in my opinion a better car
> > than the Accord, but I think the distinctions that made the Camry
> > better have been incorporated into the Accord.[/color]
>
> Good analysis and good advice.
>
> I drove both the Accord and Camry (both in V6 / automatic trim) this
> weekend.
>
> My sense is that the Accord (EX) has a tighter suspension, a
> smaller-feeling cockpit, a larger rear blindspot, and a higher-quality
> fit and finish. The Camry (XLE) has a softer ride, is quieter, and
> smoother shifting. Personally, I'd prefer the Camry for an occasional
> use road car (i.e. as used by a retiree).
>
> I agree with Jeff that you should drive both and decide for yourself.
>
>[/color]


My experience mirrors yours. I think the Camry's transmission was smoother
than the Accord's. I was in a carpool with a woman that had the Camry XLE,
and another friend had an Accord with an automatic. These were early '90s
cars, and I don't know if the same still holds true, but the Camry was a
much more pleasant drive from the perspective of the transmission behavior.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> That's probably the best way to obtain truly frugal
> transportation, especially if your income isn't as large
> as it once was.[/color]

Partially true.... it would be even more frugal to save up and buy the
used car for cash.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:35:31 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
<kolesnik@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
>need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
>maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
>I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
>better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?[/color]


I can't answer your question but let me give you another idea. Having
an almost new Accord and Corolla now (bought both new) , all things
considered, I'd probably go with the Corolla especially as a retiree.
Ofcourse everyones taste / values are different but I'm just telling
you mine. I think the corolla is comfortable enough for my tastes
especially around town. Then again, it's not as peppy as the Camry
or Accord but I don't need that. Obviously the Camry and Accord excel
in most things over the Corolla but that includes costs to drive as
well. In fact, I'll probably consider a new Corolla when I retire.

Probably tho, Honda and Toyota are wise choices and you probably won't
make a mistake with either choice regardless of model.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2doke.1728$oT1.1372@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[color=blue]
> Toyota makes one such gem - or rather, it is a Toyota with
> a Pontiac label on it - the Vibe. Consider - two perfectly
> good cars with only a little sheetmetal difference. A 2002
> Vibe sells for ~$8000. The Toyota is $10,000. That sheetmetal
> suddenly looks like less of a concern to me...[/color]

The first models of the Vibe and Matrix were 2003s.
[color=blue]
> The Matrix looks a bit better, IMO, though, but the Vibe
> has a taller rear end which allows for a slightly bigger
> rear opening for cargo. The Vibe also can be had with
> a roof rack as standard equipment. The Higher HP engine
> model, though, can be had with automatic on the Toyota, IIRC.
> The Vibe's high HP version is a 6-speed. Of course, I
> hate automatics, so either one is fine for me ;)[/color]

The Vibe GT and Matrix XRS have the stronger power plants and are only
available as 6 speed manuals.

Pat

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:35:31 +0000, Henry Kolesnik wrote:
[color=blue]
> It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
> need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
> maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
> I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
> better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?[/color]

Well, Toyota has FINALLY gone back to timing chains; Honda still uses
belts. The Honda has an interference engine; if the belt breaks, esp at
speed or under load, it's time for a new engine. The Toyota is a
non-interference engine; if you do get an older one with a belt, then you
need to put a new belt on it. Also, the brakes on the Honda involve a
couple more steps, which I'm sure is added into the labor figure. Other
than that, either one is a good car. I've had both, and both went to
200,000 miles with no problems.

Drive and price a Mercury Grand Marquis, I think you will be
happier with one of those. Bigger, stronger, better ride, bigger
trunk, tough as nails, lower insurance rate and a much safer
vehicle. ;)


mike hunt



Henry Kolesnik wrote:[color=blue]
>
> It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
> need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
> maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
> I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
> better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?
>
> --
>
> 73
> Hank WD5JFR[/color]

hachiroku wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, Toyota has FINALLY gone back to timing chains; Honda still uses
> belts.[/color]

Actually, Honda has been making the shift toward chains as well. The iVTEC
4-cylinders in the Accord and CR-V are chain-driven.

[email]MelvinGibson@mailcity.com[/email], 5/23/2005, 5:57:09 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Drive and price a Mercury Grand Marquis, I think you will be
> happier with one of those. Bigger, stronger, better ride, bigger
> trunk, tough as nails, lower insurance rate and a much safer
> vehicle. ;)
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

If I was retired I would probably agree with you on this based purely
on the safety, bigger, and better ride issue. I probably wouldn't care
that much about the reliability since I would have the money to have it
repaired.

My pastor got broadsided by a dump truck that ran a red light as he was
making a turn at the intersection. The Crown Victoria was a complete
mess and he ended up with a broken arm.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:39:20 -0400, S.S. wrote:
[color=blue]
> hachiroku wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Well, Toyota has FINALLY gone back to timing chains; Honda still uses
>> belts.[/color]
>
> Actually, Honda has been making the shift toward chains as well. The iVTEC
> 4-cylinders in the Accord and CR-V are chain-driven.[/color]

This is a good thing!

My wife was anal abut maintenance on the Honda. Good thing. My Corolla
GT-S (non-interference) goes 120,000 between breaking belts!

hachiroku, 5/23/2005, 8:49:23 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is a good thing!
>
> My wife was anal abut [snipped][/color]

That just doesn't look right.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:35:31 +0000, Henry Kolesnik wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It seems to me like these two companies make the best cars. I'm retired and
>> need to get a good four door and my main concerns are reliabliity, low cost
>> maintenance and initial cost. I would consider a year or two year old also.
>> I hear of Honda Civics going to 300,000 miles with few problems. Which is
>> better, the Accord or the Camry or did I miss one?[/color]
>
>Well, Toyota has FINALLY gone back to timing chains; Honda still uses
>belts. The Honda has an interference engine; if the belt breaks, esp at
>speed or under load, it's time for a new engine. The Toyota is a
>non-interference engine; if you do get an older one with a belt, then you
>need to put a new belt on it. Also, the brakes on the Honda involve a
>couple more steps, which I'm sure is added into the labor figure. Other
>than that, either one is a good car. I've had both, and both went to
>200,000 miles with no problems.[/color]

My Brother-in-Law has one with just under 500,000 miles on it
(and that's Imperial miles too - not those wimpy little American
miles!)... :)
--


-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"