You might get a few more Honda nods as this is a Honda group, but both
cars have excellent long-term records. In general, most folks see the
Accord as nimbler than the Camry, but maybe a tad smaller. You can't go
wrong with either one. Those are the two with the the highest marks.
Folks might steer you towards an Altima or Maxima as well.

 

I own both Honda and Toyota and I like the resposiveness better on the
Honda, but the comfort (and room) of the Toyota.

 

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

 

Jason wrote:
> In article <PJydnami4slumAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jason wrote:
>>
>>>In article <H96dnVLeYpkuQwvfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
>>><mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
>>>>
>>>>generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
>>>>civic just had.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>There are exceptions to every rule. For example, my '99 Accord is the
>>>second generation--not the third. It's an exception to the rule since the
>>>engine and related transmission was first used in the 1996 Acura CL. This
>>>means that the engine and transmission in my 99 Accord was used three
>>>years before it was placed in the 99 Accords. That's why I was not
>>>concerned about it since I knew any defects found in the engine and
>>>transmission were repaired before it was placed in my car.
>>>
>>
>>so the V6 version of the 96 acura and 99 accord didnt have any auto
>>tranny probs?
>
>
> There are exceptions to every rule. I agree--Honda should have solved this
> problem before they put that same defective transmission in the 99 Honda
> Accord 6 cyld. cars. Honda dropped the ball. My neighbor has a 99 Honda 6
> cyld. Accord. I have not told them about the problem since it would just
> cause them to worry. Do you know whether or not Honda is replacing those
> transmissions for free? if so, I will tell them in case their transmission
> develops problems. I am glad that I have the 4 cyld. version of the same
> car instead of the 6 cyld.
>
which about the same time honda took the decision to drop all hatchbacks
here in the u.s., make the civic macpherson strut and adopt red rear
turn signal lenses - one of the DUMBEST things i have ever seen. oh,
and make the accord have twin pipes coming out of the rear despite the
fact that there's only pipe coming under the car.

whatever my pet peeves, honda have come under a lot of criticism from
the financial analysts for their civic decison - it basically handed the
substantial "enthusiast" market to subaru on a plate with
correspondingly disasterous drops in sales. when's the last time you
saw an rsx, the macpherson "integra"? and toyota have taken a lot of
honda's family sedan market because of the transmission problems you cite.

honda used to be run by car enthusiasts. now, it seems to be run by
bean counters who think cosmetic garbage and engineering short cuts are
the way to make money. wrong honda, wrong. that's ford/g.m.'s game. i
used to buy honda because they were well made, well engineered, sporty
little cars. if i was in the market for a new car today, i'd buy toyota
or nissan. or subaru.

 

In article <PJydnami4slumAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <H96dnVLeYpkuQwvfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
> > <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jason wrote:
> >>
> >>>theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
> >>
> >>generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
> >>civic just had.
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > There are exceptions to every rule. For example, my '99 Accord is the
> > second generation--not the third. It's an exception to the rule since the
> > engine and related transmission was first used in the 1996 Acura CL. This
> > means that the engine and transmission in my 99 Accord was used three
> > years before it was placed in the 99 Accords. That's why I was not
> > concerned about it since I knew any defects found in the engine and
> > transmission were repaired before it was placed in my car.
> >
> so the V6 version of the 96 acura and 99 accord didnt have any auto
> tranny probs?

There are exceptions to every rule. I agree--Honda should have solved this
problem before they put that same defective transmission in the 99 Honda
Accord 6 cyld. cars. Honda dropped the ball. My neighbor has a 99 Honda 6
cyld. Accord. I have not told them about the problem since it would just
cause them to worry. Do you know whether or not Honda is replacing those
transmissions for free? if so, I will tell them in case their transmission
develops problems. I am glad that I have the 4 cyld. version of the same
car instead of the 6 cyld.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

Jason wrote:
> In article <H96dnVLeYpkuQwvfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jason wrote:
>>
>>>theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
>>
>>generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
>>civic just had.
>
>
> Hello,
> There are exceptions to every rule. For example, my '99 Accord is the
> second generation--not the third. It's an exception to the rule since the
> engine and related transmission was first used in the 1996 Acura CL. This
> means that the engine and transmission in my 99 Accord was used three
> years before it was placed in the 99 Accords. That's why I was not
> concerned about it since I knew any defects found in the engine and
> transmission were repaired before it was placed in my car.
>
so the V6 version of the 96 acura and 99 accord didnt have any auto
tranny probs?

 

> the platform and drivetrains were pretty much carried over, though.
> werent they?

I would say, NO!

The 1.8 L engine was new. The auto tranny was new. The chassis was
also considerably bigger than the first gen Integra.

 

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2705051520430001@pm4-broad-0.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> In article <H96dnVLeYpkuQwvfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>> > theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
>>
>> generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
>> civic just had.
>
> Hello,
> There are exceptions to every rule. For example, my '99 Accord is the
> second generation--not the third.

Second generation of what?
My 91 is _fourth_ generations of Accords...

 

In article <H96dnVLeYpkuQwvfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
>
> generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
> civic just had.

Hello,
There are exceptions to every rule. For example, my '99 Accord is the
second generation--not the third. It's an exception to the rule since the
engine and related transmission was first used in the 1996 Acura CL. This
means that the engine and transmission in my 99 Accord was used three
years before it was placed in the 99 Accords. That's why I was not
concerned about it since I knew any defects found in the engine and
transmission were repaired before it was placed in my car.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2605051948090001@pm1-broad-103.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> In article <mfmdnafL1Pr6ywvfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, "Pars"
> <sdaro(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When it come to the Accord vs Camry, I'm totally biased toward the
Honda. I
> > can't stand that primitive exhaust system on the Camry that (when viewed
> > from the rear) looks like a tumor growing out of the under side of the
car.
> > It seems that a flat underside is a somewhat important trait for modern
car
> > design. So, why doesn't the vaunted Camry have it? That car is well
over-do
> > for a revision (judging from the new Avalon, it'd probably be a home
run).
> > Until then, I'd go with an already re-designed car with a vastly better
> > suspension system.
>
> Great post. I just wanted to add some advice that I learned from someone a
> long time ago. He said that most all car companies make the identical
> model for about three years in a row. The car companies make minor
> improvements in the model during those three years to correct any defects
> found during the previous year or years. It's for these reasons that he
> said to always buy the model that is made during the third year since it's
> the best of the three.I realized that other people might disagree with the
> theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.
>

Waiting to see how the model performs over the long term is obviously a
cautious
route. Given that the Net is a good source to expose any imperfection on an
aging
model, waiting for the 'guinea-pigs' to do their job, makes sense. It's nice
to know
that the manufactures (at least the ones that can afford it) are more
pro-active about
fixing bugs (and in some cases improving) on their current models.

Pars


> --
> NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
> We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
> We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
>
>
>

 

jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:
> Absolutely true for "Detroit iron." (Using the terms "Big Three" and
> "domestic" doesn't make sense any more, does it?)
>
> Jap manufacturers do a far better job at doing it right the first time.
> I would not hesitate to buy a first year jap model if it is the car I
> want. In fact, my brother questioned my sanity when I bought a '90
> Integra, the first year of the second generation.

the platform and drivetrains were pretty much carried over, though.
werent they?

 

In article <1117207851.414085.91960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:

> In fact, my brother questioned my sanity when I bought a '90
> Integra, the first year of the second generation. 119,000 miles never
> revealed any problems that were fixed in following years. Honda never
> got around to redesigning master brake cylinders that didn't leak, or
> mufflers that didn't rust through.

Funny--I had the same experience with my 92 Civic Si. First model year
of a completely new platform (not like the 88 MY, which was simply a
refresher of the 84 MY using the same platform). Nary a problem. It
all just worked.

OTOH, the Civic (and by extension the Integra) is a pretty simple,
straightforward car. I might be a little more skittish about something
in the Lexus LS/Acura RL category.

 

Absolutely true for "Detroit iron." (Using the terms "Big Three" and
"domestic" doesn't make sense any more, does it?)

Jap manufacturers do a far better job at doing it right the first time.
I would not hesitate to buy a first year jap model if it is the car I
want. In fact, my brother questioned my sanity when I bought a '90
Integra, the first year of the second generation. 119,000 miles never
revealed any problems that were fixed in following years. Honda never
got around to redesigning master brake cylinders that didn't leak, or
mufflers that didn't rust through.

 

Jason wrote:
> theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.

generally makes sense, especially after a major platform change like the
civic just had.

 

In article <mfmdnafL1Pr6ywvfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, "Pars"
<sdaro(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When it come to the Accord vs Camry, I'm totally biased toward the Honda. I
> can't stand that primitive exhaust system on the Camry that (when viewed
> from the rear) looks like a tumor growing out of the under side of the car.
> It seems that a flat underside is a somewhat important trait for modern car
> design. So, why doesn't the vaunted Camry have it? That car is well over-do
> for a revision (judging from the new Avalon, it'd probably be a home run).
> Until then, I'd go with an already re-designed car with a vastly better
> suspension system.

Great post. I just wanted to add some advice that I learned from someone a
long time ago. He said that most all car companies make the identical
model for about three years in a row. The car companies make minor
improvements in the model during those three years to correct any defects
found during the previous year or years. It's for these reasons that he
said to always buy the model that is made during the third year since it's
the best of the three.I realized that other people might disagree with the
theory but it seems to make sense. What's your opinion on this subject.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <cVGke.965$3D6.725@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
kolesnik@sbcglobal.net says...

> The old retiree is leaniung toward a Camry, I have all the fun and tickets
> driving performance cars. I'll leave that to others. Thanks to all for all
> the opinions.
> Hank

Go test drive both before you make a decision. My dad, who is 73 and
hadn't owned a non-domestic car since he had a Beetle in the mid-1960s,
went to a Mercury dealership intending to buy a new Sable. He got so
irritated at the attitude of the salesman that he took my offhand
comment about checking out an Accord to heart, and the next thing I knew
he was calling me to tell me he had a new Accord in his garage. He's had
it for a little over a year now and loves it.

Yes, the ride is firmer in an Accord than a Camry, but it's hardly a
sports/performance car - the difference is more like the difference
between a European sedan and an American sedan.

Dave

 

Henry Kolesnik wrote:
> 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?
>
either, or. there are no haters here, and if i didnt have a honda, id
own a toyota. in fact, im considering (for the millionth time) a scion
xA, but its nice having a paid off reliable civic.

i personally like the styling of the toyotas more than the current
generation of hondas. and again, IMO... an engine that uses a timing
chain is better than one that needs a scheduled belt/water pump
replacement. dunno what the current honda/toyota engine choices offer as
far as that.

 

"Henry Kolesnik" <kolesnik@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:T2mke.499$TJ2.194@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> 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?
>


Either will be very long-lived with proper maintenance. Either will easily
make it to 300K with proper maintenance, driving habits, and timely oil
changes.

Neither will last to 300K without oil-burning if the driving consists of
primarily city use.

Other than esthetics and ergonomics, I can't see any difference between the
two.

Maintenance costs will be very similar for both.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

In article <1116890036.095818.325380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:

> Even the Accord hasn't had the best reputation in the last few years,
> particularly with some transmission problems. Given the choice, it
> sounds to me like you really want a Camry.

I agree--and I'm a Honda guy from way, way back.

But, I acquired a 125K mile 94 Lexus ES (Camry clone) awhile back, and I
have to say that Toyota must be doing something very, very right for
that car to be as comfortable and problem-free as it has been for the
last 18 months and 25K miles.

 

merlotbrougham@hotmail.com wrote:
> You might get a few more Honda nods as this is a Honda group, but
both
> cars have excellent long-term records. In general, most folks see the
> Accord as nimbler than the Camry, but maybe a tad smaller. You can't
go
> wrong with either one. Those are the two with the the highest marks.
> Folks might steer you towards an Altima or Maxima as well.

I have a 2004 Accord and a '96 I30t (Infiniti's Maxima clone). The
'96-'99 Max and especially the I30/35 are extremely reliable.

But, the Maxima and the I35 replacement (now gone) did not fare as well
in the 2000-2006 versions. If you want ultra-low fix-its for the long
term, stay with Accord or Camry. The Maxima and its very close
relative, the Altima, are bigger, and the engines/transmissions have a
good reputation, but you will probably have more issues with the Maxima
generally.

Even the Accord hasn't had the best reputation in the last few years,
particularly with some transmission problems. Given the choice, it
sounds to me like you really want a Camry. They have a huge trunk and
a plushier ride than the Accord.