Honda vs 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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

ditto on either Honda or Camry being great cars.

Honestly your age demographic suggests that the Camry is more in line for
you. I am not being a smart ass or anything it is just the truth. Camry's
are marketed towards an older demographic than the Hondas. Honda's are
geared for younger couples or young families although either car can do the
same thing for young or old.

The Camry is known for its "cushier' ride while the Honda is tuned for a
'sportier' ride hence the demographic push.

 

Honda is definitely more fun to drive than toyota, and the whole idea of
having a car is driving it so I'd go for the Accord!

RAT

 

Yep, my mom recently went shopping for the "standard issue" sedan and ended
up with an 05 Camry after test driving both, citing the smoothness and
quietness as pluses. She is well aware of my Honda bias!

 

seems that in the past gen or 2 some of the fun has been toned down to
more like blandness.

 

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

 

Why? The belt is quieter and will last to about 100,000 miles.
Anybody pushing the car past that point is risking a shot water pump.
You just replace the belt and the pump at the same time. Good for
another 100,000 miles.

My mind changed about this subject a year ago, when my water pump
failed on my I30 at 96,000 miles. The job to replace the pump is so
intricate (access problems & cam timing difficulties), that even my
Infiniti dealer calls in a floater to do this specialty work. $650 for
a new pump. Seems to me that I gained nothing with a metal chain,
except extra noise.

FWIW, the new Accord I4 engine does use a chain. The V6 has a 105,000
mile belt.

 

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

 

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.

Pars

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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