(first posted 1/28/2015) Jackie or Marilyn? Rolling Stones or Beatles? Mustang or Camaro? These epic comparisons often border on epic rivalries that in turn, lead to die hard fans. While the Ford Mustang/Chevy Camaro rivalry may be among the most enticing in the automotive world, there’s no denying that another epic showdown has existed in America’s most popular car segment for three decades: the Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry.
Dating back to the early-1980s, these two front-wheel drive family sedans have been duking it out in America’s most competitive segment, often for the title of best selling car in America. From their humble compact beginnings, both cars have evolved into substantially larger and higher content cars. Yet through it all, these two mainstays have stuck to the same game plan, and their loyal consumers have largely stuck to them.
Since the 1990s, both the Accord and Camry have operated in five-year generation cycles, with a new Accord arriving one model year behind the latest Camry. This has allowed them to compete with one another pretty fairly, and makes it especially easy to compare generations with one another. A whole series of articles could be written comparing each generation of Accord versus Camry, but for today the subject focuses on the 1997-2001 Camry and the 1998-2002 Accord.
On paper, both cars appear very similar. Both were front-wheel drive, mid-sized four-door sedans (the Accord was also available in a rather sexy coupe, but this comparison is strictly sedan-only). Each offered the choice of a 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, and inline-4 and V6 engines. They both had the same 14.1 cubic feet of cargo capacity, and in V6 form, identical curb weights. The Camry rode on a 105.2 inch wheelbase, and was 188.5 inches long, 70.1 inches wide, and 55.4 inches tall. The Accord rode on a slightly longer 106.9 inch wheelbase, and was 188.8 inches long, 70.3 inches wide, and 57.3 inches tall.
In real life though, differences were more substantial, and I’ll get into that. I should also add that I am very familiar with both of these cars, as two of my aunts each purchased a brand-new 1997 Camry and 1998 Accord. It’s best to start chronologically, so I shall start with the Camry.
(1992 Camry)
The 1997 Toyota Camry had big shoes to fill. The preceding 1992-1996 Toyota Camry was a huge sales success, annually taking the number two spot behind the Accord as the best-selling import (despite American assembly). Commonly regarded as the best Camry of all time, it managed to post yearly sales increases, hitting the 350,000 mark in 1996. A huge leap forward from its narrow-body, economy-rooted predecessor, the 1992-1996 Camry offered vastly superior levels of space, comfort, features, and value, all wrapped in very Lexus-like sheet metal. It was a reliable, well-equipped car for the money, with some Toyota accountants even pegging it as too much of a value for the price point. This factor, combined with the mid-’90s hyper-inflation of the Japanese yen, dictated substantial cost-saving measures in the development and production of the next Camry.
So, just what did these cost-saving measures entail? Luckily, the majority of cost-saving translated to a design that used fewer components for easier and cheaper production, as opposed to the typical decrease in material quality. The model lineup was also slashed, with no coupes, sporty SE models, or wagons (for the North American market, that is). Overall, the 1997 Camry was a minor evolution of its predecessor, which in many aspects wasn’t a bad thing. There were several improvements, such as longer wheelbase for greater comfort and incremental output increases for both the carryover engines, but overall, the 1997 Camry didn’t offer much in the way of anything new to get excited about. Then there was the styling.
Where the 1992 Camry was a rather highly-styled, upscale design for its class, the 1997 looked almost retrograde. Elegant curves were replaced by straighter, more angular styling. The slight hint of athletic shoulders at the ’92’s C-pillar were gone too. The new Camry looked far less premium, far more appliance-like, and frankly, like it could have come before the 1992-1996 model.
This was especially true in the rear, which looked frumpy and uninspired, with a pinched-in look. The very slim taillights didn’t help, looking like they came from 1990.
Likewise, interiors looked equally bland and sterile. Fit-and-finish and material quality were still among best in class, although once again the interior design was largely retrograde. Much like the exterior, simple straight lines dictated interior design.
The driving experience could be described best as predictable. Smooth and quiet, adequate power in the V6, and overall an easy car to drive – no surprises. Not much in the way of dynamic handling, but that was not the intended goal of this car.
While it may sound like I am hating on the 1997-2001 Camry, in truth it was not a bad car. Objectively speaking, it was a totally adequate car for what it set out to do. The main issue with the ’97 Camry was that it offered little to no improvement over its predecessor, something that all redesigns should strive for. Its design was also a major step backwards, especially considering that it was chosen among more engaging design proposals like this one. Other designs considered can be seen at Autos of Interest.
(1994 Accord)
Now let’s get to its arch enemy, the Honda Accord. Arriving one year later, the 1998 Honda Accord was a very different story. Its own 1994-1997 predecessor was a fine car, although not so much of a standout as the ’92 Camry, making it less of a tough act to follow.
(1999 Acura TL)
The new and larger Accord now rode on the same platform as the premium Acura TL/Honda Inspire, arguably one of the best-handling front-wheel drive sports sedans of its time. While the family-oriented Accord was hardly a sports sedan, handling certainly benefited from the TL, and was commonly regarded as best in class.
A bit of TL could also be seen in the Accord’s styling, which was somewhat more expressive than its Camry rival. Despite nearly identical exterior dimensions, the Accord’s lower hood, steeply raked windshield, and upswept belt line gave it a decidedly sportier appearance. Flared fenders, side skirts (on ES and SE models), and a character line running the length of the vehicle also enhanced the Accord’s more aggressive looks.
Additionally, owing to the 4-door Accord’s somewhat sportier styling was its related coupe variant. Although the two shared minimal body panels, there was strong visual relation to the Accord Coupe, whose design was finalized a year earlier than the sedan.
Overall, at least in your author’s opinion, the 1998 Accord was the more attractive vehicle of the two by far. While the mid-size car segment dictated a certain degree of conservatism for mass appeal, Honda didn’t take this a sign to design a car as visually numbing as novocain.
Inside, the Accord would appear to have the advantage too. While the Camry’s dash board and instrument panel appeared square and uninspired, the Accord’s looked significantly more stylish and modern, while remaining highly ergonomic and driver-focused. Material quality and color schemes seemed to hint at a touch more of upscale nature, especially when compared to the previous generation Accord.
So, the 1997 Toyota Camry and the 1998 Honda Accord, was one a better car than the other? That’s a question which, unfortunately, really can’t be answered. It’s like asking is red or white wine better; it’s a matter of preference (I personally prefer red, although I still get a taste for white every now and then).
It’s suffice to say that this generation Camry was the more reliable of the two, due to the Honda’s transmission issues. Like several other Honda products from this time, this generation Accord was prone to transmission failures in the 4-speed automatic, when mated to the V6, due to a defect in the torque converter. This issue prompted class-action lawsuits against Honda, and Honda extend warranties for some model years, replacing transmissions for other years on individual basis.
I’m sure in more recent years, many owners of these now elderly Accords simply chose not to replace transmissions, sending them to the great junkyard in the sky earlier than the Camry. That said, the Camry was not without its own reliability issues, specifically regarding engine, suspension, and brake issues. Despite the transmission issues, I still see just about as many of this generation Accord on the roads as Camry. I should also add that my aunt’s 1998 Accord EX V6 made it twelve years and over 200,000 miles before having any transmission issues.
Again, naming the “better car” of the two is a matter of deep-rooted opinion. Accord buyers tend to buy another Accord, and Camry buyers tend to buy another Camry. I’ll bet there are very few people who have switched between the Accord and Camry.
Now as you’ve probably detected by now, I’m more team Accord. Why is that? Well, as I’ve mentioned the Accord was, and continues to be a more dynamic entry in the mid-size segment. Offering better handling, what I feel to be more attractive styling, and better interiors, the less staid Accord is more my kind of car. In fact, I basically drive the slightly smaller European Accord, which I have nothing but praise for.
Additionally, as I mentioned, two of my aunts owned a 1997 Camry LE and a 1998 Accord EX. While there was nothing I particularly disliked about the Camry, there was just more I liked about the Accord. Both cars exhibited excellent fit-and-finish, and provided comfortable, composed rides, but the Accord always seemed a bit more fun. It’s rev-happy engine always produced more appealing sounds, and even as a passenger, it just seemed more confident at higher speeds.
But despite the 1997 Camry’s seemingly lack of major improvement and step backward in terms of styling, 1997 was the year the tides turned in the Camry’s favor. Beginning in 1997, the Toyota Camry would be the best selling car in its class, and the best selling car in America, a title it has held every year since, except for 2001. So, is Toyota’s softer, more conservative approach the key to success in this class?
It’s safe to say that both cars succeeded their intended missions, in being spacious, affordable, and durable family sedans, at the top of their class. Yet in creating these sedans, Toyota and Honda followed considerably different paths in their executions. Which car do you think pulled it off better?
I will counter that the 1997-2001 Toyota Camry was in fact the cleanest and most balanced design, inside and out. Better than what came before and what has come since that generation. I recognize that the previous generation was considered the high-water mark for solid quality in the Camry, but looks-wise it was chunky and not especially aesthetically pleasing. I my view, as someone who wanted to become an automotive designer/stylist in my teen years, over 40 years ago, they just about nailed it styling-wise with the 1997-2001 Camry. YMMV.
Styling-wise, I consider it the 2nd best styled foreign sedan, with the BMW E-39 (1997-2003) 5-series as the Number 1 best styled foreign sedan.
Totally what I was going to say. I thought the 1997 generation was very sharp, especially in the back, where it looked almost Italian. The front end was uninspired, though. In contrast I found the previous generation to be lumpy and frumpy.
Yuk. You are wrong.
“Yuk. You are wrong.”
That is such an insightful statement, Kev. I’m sure you took a long time to create such a thought provoking counterpoint to LiteWerks opinions. It has added an impressive depth and breadth to the conversation.
Absolutely agree. The 97-01 Camry is schmexy! I just came from a 94 and I look at my 98 with a desire in my eyes that I didn’t have with my 94.
I went from a 1992 To a 1999 And I love my gen 4 more as well. The interior feels more open and airy, and the looks move me in a way that my Gen 3 never did. Gen 3 was hard to kill though. I drove mine to 210k before I got sick of it (Drove it 10 years)
I agree. The previous gen Camry was a fine car, but the exterior had a faint, Saturnish econocar look; the 97 redesign had an understated sleek, cool elegance. This redesign pushed the Camry to #1 on the US sales charts, where it has remained ever since. Numbers and satisfied customers don’t lie!
My 1999 275,000 mile Camry is the best car I have ever owned
Amazing reliability. Also much less rust prone than Accords in rust-belt Ohio.
My math skills must be faulty, I could have sworn these cars were on a 4 year cycle?
Ironically(?), in the case of the 2 models pictured, “chatter” on the internet says the Camry’s V6 is smooth but due to a faulty design it is not always long lived while Accord’s transmission is the weak link in the V6 design.
Today, the Accord is the only one of the 2 still available in the U.S. with a manual transmission (reflecting Honda’s sportier nature?)….heck, it may be the only car in this size / class with a manual transmission.
Finally, IMHO, the Camry seems to be more of a “woman’s car” while the Accord is more of a “man’s car”. Of course, I’m a bit biased as I have owned 4 Honda products and only driven 1 or 2 Toyota products.
The Passat has a manual transmission available.
Interesting that my aunt bought the “man’s car” and my dad bought the “woman’s car”. I never thought that way, maybe because hers was a base four and his a high-content V-6, with alloys and four wheel disc brakes. I was impressed with the smooth silence of the Accord four, not its sportiness.
Anyway, the Camry is still alive, in my daughter’s hands at nearly 300,000 miles without a trace of engine sludge and no brake or suspension problems. It will likely be driven by a fourth generation in this family before it dies.
Another friend has a base Camry of the same generation and it still takes his equipment, as a full-time musician, from Big Bear to Indian casinos in San Diego county to San Pedro and back every month.
I will acknowledge that I very much like the interior of that 1998 Accord you’ve shown. I’ve got to acknowledge that I’m greatly impressed at how many times the Honda Accord has made Car & Driver’s 10 Best list. The Accord’s steering, ride and handling have been one area that sets them a bit above the completion. Styling-wise, I liked the 1986-89 Accord and the 1990-93 Accord, preferably in the high trim level. And, I rather like the current Accord sedan, too.
I’ve never understood the praise for the Accord’s ride and handling. I’ve driven most versions since the second generation, and they never really felt planted on the road. My parents leased a fourth-generation Accord that I drove quite a bit, and my main recollection (along with the interior, which was very well-designed) was of the unsettling way the front end seemed to bounce up and down going around curves on winding country roads. And this was a new car, so it wasn’t an issue of worn-out struts. There was something very “light-feeling” about the car that was disconcerting to me. I recently drove a last-generation model and it felt exactly the same, so obviously, this is a characteristic that people like that I’m just not getting.
The Camry, by contrast, feels heavy and wooden. It doesn’t like corners, but understeers mercilessly, to the point of taking you onto the wrong side of the road if you enter a corner at a Mazda-like speed. I’m thinking the Accord would be safer than that.
Excellent piece, Brendan and thank you. I’m proud owner of a ’97 LE 4 cyl [just like the burgundy one pictured here] with 228K on the clock. Best car I’ve ever owned; cost effective and consistently reliable.
I like the red one. 😉
Unfortunately my reaction to these is pretty much the same as the Intrigue last week. They seem like nice enough cars, but just not very interesting. (which is why they sell lots & lots of them, since most people aren’t car enthusiasts)
That said, however, I very much like reading a piece like this as it refutes the too often repeated ideas that “Young people hate cars” and “Nobody will ever collect cars made after…”
Nice cars considering neither excel at anything the Peugeot 406 is a similar size and leaves both for dead in ride comfort and finish, as far as handling goes neither Japanese car is even in the same ball park. Even the watered down 92 Camry was barely a patch on the 90 91 that preceded it a car not sold anywhere but NZ.
Bryce, I doubt you have driven the Accord or Camry, since they are North America only models.
These things are as common as flies out here The wide body Camry was developed in NZ we were the Beta testers, Yes Ive driven them Americans get JDM grade cars nothing special poor roadholding soft suspension, Your problem is youve never driven a 406 Pug they eat rubbish like these.
My mate and I recently did a brake repair on his sisters US Accord so they are definitely here the brakes were the first issue it had but it was rapidly downhill from there and she swapped it for a 4WD Toyota Corona.
Actually Canuck, to jump in and defend the ever-opinionated Bryce, this Camry was definitely sold in NZ (as well as Europe), and I believe this Accord was as it was in Australia. 🙂
For the next generation, we got the European AND American Accords here in Australia, and I feel NZ would be the same.
Although Bryce, I wouldn’t call either of these cars rubbish. But we know where your automotive allegiances lie… 😛
This generation, the previous model and future 3 models of Toyota Camry was built in Australia This model being built in a brand new factory and not built using CKD kits, including the 4 cylinder motor and with Australian developed suspention settings (far too soft and wollowy for my liking, Mitsubishi Magna had better handling). These were generally 3rd in sales race behind bigger and RWD but far more agricultural Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon. Still quite common on our roads in 2023 in usually well “used” condition. I highly doubt KiwiBryce claim the XV10 Camry arrived first in NZ as beta testers as US started production of this series of Camry before Japan and not imported to dosy NZ.
Also this generation of Honda Accord was sold here (from Japan) as well and seen every now and then.
You can’t really compare a 406 Pug to either of these more basic cars, but the 406 is a far more handsome car, which I like and the 1999 facelifted looked great, unfortunately the 407 is just hidious. Dont see many 406 on our roads today, I’d imagine parts pricing/availability would’ve sent them to the crushers years ago.
While the Peugeot might have had better handling , it was smaller and I doubt the refinement was as good. The main problem though is that Peugeot quality is just terrible , I don’t see it as a competitor to these two.
Perhaps you should drive one before you form an opinion its obvious you havent.
The last we got here was the 405, which had a great chassis, but was really out of touch with American tastes in this class and had a weak dealer network. It was no threat to these cars at all, commercially, and Pug pulled out before the 406 arrived.
The Peugeot 406 is slightly shorter overall and an inch narrower but has the same wheelbase; you might be thinking of the 405 that was a size smaller. The 406 was also available with 4-cyl and V6 power (plus diesel), a coupe and a wagon. It was much ‘nicer’ although from memory a little less powerful and in Australia at least more expensive. The Accord was more expensive than the Camry too.
Canucknucklehead, the Camry and Accord are sold widely throughout the world, with the exception being Europe.
>>Beginning in 1997, the Toyota Camry would be the best selling car in its class, and the best selling car in America, a title it has held every year since, except for 2001. So, is Toyota’s softer, more conservative approach the key to success in this class?<<
Not one bit. The key to Toyota's "success" is fleet sales pure and simple.
The Accord has always outsold the Camry among retail customers. If Honda went after fleet sales if would most likely win there too. Nissan recently pumped Altima sales by making it a discount car.
The Accord’s success is a better car and better resale than the Camry.
There is some guy on your former site that remarkably maintains that the sucky 2014 Camry SE is better than the Accord Sport. Despite every other site maintaining the opposite – in spades. I guess subjective preference can trump what appears to be objective reality.
Fleet sales are a huge part of the Camry success, and it was this generation in which they really started going that direction. Can you find any breakdown of the percentage of Camry fleet sales? I remember reading a while ago that Honda strictly maintains the fact that less than 2% of its overall sales in the U.S. go to fleet sales.
2013 retail sales for Camry were 342,007 out of 408,484 total. Approximately 16% are fleet sales. Honda doesn’t have a separate fleet sales division, so I would take that 2% with a big grain of salt.
Thanks! Yes Camry sales are inflated quite a bit from fleet sales.
The fact that you write for an internet blog makes your preference for an Accord a reasonably safe assumption. Camry owners tend to have no interest whatsoever in automobiles, other than serving the function they were purchased for.
Not mentioned here, but I believe this was the generation of Camry that finally took the sedan sales leadership for what seems to be forever? If so, then this shows one huge point that the average auto blogger is determined to ignore:
The average American car buyer likes dull. He/she wants dull. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. Its an appliance, something to get the buyer and family where they need to be every day with no excitement, no drama.
Which is to say, the Camry buyer is normal. We’re the weirdos who’s opinions should be ignored. We don’t buy enough new cars (hell, most of us refuse to buy new at all) to matter.
” We don’t buy enough new cars (…, most of us refuse to buy new at all) to matter.”
Careful, Syke – your TTAC is showing! Don’t worry, I’ll be in that camp, too, when I retire!
The truth does hurt…
I write that because I’m one of those in the same boat. The last time I was able to afford a new car, full price down, was my 2000 Jeep Cherokee. Even today, willing to do no more than three years of payments, my choices are limited to, say, the Kia Rio, Ford Fiesta, Chevrolet Sonic. And I’m not talking the performance variants, either.
I am swimming in the same stream. In fact I like the single payment plan: cash.
I’m still driving a 79 Thunderbird I bought more than 17 years ago for $900 if that tells you anything.
My father leased a couple of these Camrys and loved them because they were so dull. He exists almost completely outside the car culture. He grew up in the Bronx (during the Depression), didn’t drive until he was in his 30s, and has remarked to me on more than one occasion that “Cars are nothing more than a waste of money.” For him, this was the perfect car: safe, reliable, roomy, and cheap to own. The Camry does reliable and dull better than anyone else, and that’s great, because that’s what most people are looking for and really all they need. Cars today have way too much power and too much extra crap anyway for most people’s needs. If I could give up 5 seconds in 0 to 60 time for 10 extra MPG, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Most of us never drive over 75 anyway, and most people who do drive that fast probably shouldn’t.
“Cars today have way too much power and too much extra crap anyway for most people’s needs. If I could give up 5 seconds in 0 to 60 time for 10 extra MPG, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Most of us never drive over 75 anyway, and most people who do drive that fast probably shouldn’t.”
When it comes to bottom feeder appliance cars like this and the driving skills of the people who buy them, I couldn’t agree more. With a V6, some of these family rides can equal or exceed speed levels of early 90s Mustangs and Camaros. I saw a LOT of those wrapped around a tree after some dumbass parent with more money than brains handed them off to a 16 year old. A middle aged federal beauracrat or an elderly grandmother with no particular aptitude for driving or interest in cars sitting on 260 hp and a soft suspension is a disaster waiting to happen. Save high horsepower and performance for those who actually WANT it, can actually handle it and will take the time to learn to drive defensively.
I think any new midsize V6 can and would walk away from the pony cars you speak of, even some of the turbo fours come mighty close. These models are in the minority nowadays, however. Not only that, but ESP deserves far more credit that it seems to be given when it’s an inexperienced driver behind the wheel, imo.
Im not sure they would ‘walk away’…but they would be awfully close. A V6 camry is good for 0-60 times well under 7 seconds. A Fox body Mustang with the 5.0 and slushbox is good for about the same. Fox is still lighter and likely better geared. Still, no midsize sedan should be able to come close to a performance coupe.
Im all for the HP wars that are happening now, but only applied to cars that ‘need’ such muscle. Putting a near 300 hp engine in a car that has none of the suspension upgrades or appropriate handling dynamics to handle it and in the hands of a non enthusiast is a horrible death waiting to happen. A buddy had a newish Camry back around ’03. Driving that tinny, wallowing floatmobile at 70 mph did NOT feel safe to me.
The current V6 Camry is good for 5.8 second 0-60 times. The Accord Touring V6 is a 5.6 second car, and the 6-speed coupe is quicker still. Time marches on. I’ve yet to see a bunch of wrecked powerful family sedans, but I suppose it could be different when they funnel down to being teenagers’ first cars.
It amazes me that you can buy a Camry with a 268-hp V6. That is just insane.
The horsepower race among manufacturers is completely nuts. Nobody needs a 268-hp Camry. If car manufacturers would make cars with the amount of power people actually need and use, we’d all be getting much better mileage without the need for all this complicated hybrid stuff. What are people doing with all this power? Are they taking their Camrys to the drag strip? Burning rubber on their twice-weekly trips to ShopRite? Seriously, I’d much rather have the improved mileage than a bunch of extra power I’ll never use, and I’d bet 75% of American drivers feel the same way.
I always felt like my 74-hp Dasher had enough power to do whatever I needed it to do, and I never knew or cared what the 0-60 time was. It went, it stopped, it got up to speed fast enough to merge on the expressway, and it was engaging and fun to drive to boot.
Now get off my lawn, you kids.
Apparently four-cylinder intermediates vastly outsell V6s though. Wish I had the sales figures to back that up, but I’ve heard it many times.
“Which is to say, the Camry buyer is normal. We’re the weirdos who’s opinions should be ignored. We don’t buy enough new cars (hell, most of us refuse to buy new at all) to matter.” I nominate this for COTD. Brilliant!
I have drove a Honda but it had many transmission problems but when I switch to Camry it was the best car ever had, never had to deal with many transmission problems like accord Honda . The Toyota runs smooth and its very quiet but also run fast last longer than the Honda. The Camry car such a beautiful car with no noise like the accord. the Honda was expensive with bad transmission its was worth getting toyota and saving a reliable car that actually works. Toyota is fun to drive not like accord with problems. Toyota save more gas to go anywhere
People sometimes forget but certain year Honda automatics have crazy high failure rates. Actually it’s still a bit of a problem even in their new cars. Honda never figured out automatic transmissions as well at Toyota. (while Mopar is in my name I’m am for the record a current Honda owner and past Toyota owner)
The Camry! I thought that it looked like a copy of an Alfa 164 when it was new, less the angularity. The interior is horrible though. I concur on your opinion of the quality dropping! It was the old bait and switch on a huge level.
I see the Alfa 164 resemblance, but the Camry lacks the fine detailing that makes the Alfa sizzle and pop.
I agree! The back end was Alfa-esque, but the front by Rubbermaid. Once they added a proper grille it looked better, but by then the rear lights had swelled.
I could abuse one of these all day long with the 4 cyl manual. Just takes a licking and keeps ticking.
But the Accord seemed a half step up, style wise and handling. The next gens of both of these were cracker jack too…
You make a good point. I went from a gen 3 to gen 4. I enjoy the styling more than gen 3, but the interior quality did drop a peg. I always see gen 4’s with deformed window switch bezels that pop the switches out, Ive seen fabric peeling off the door panels and my biggest aggravation is actually the clock. I tried cleaning the face and it popped out of place and fell into the dash. Toyota did not see fit to screw it into the dash like they used to. Just a couple of cheap clips. Still a nice car but I can see where they cut corners compared to the previous generation.
I’ve always thought that this generation Accord was the zenith of Accords. It’s all been down the bloated hill from there.
A friend of mine has had an Accord of this generation, in dark blue, for probably 12 years now. She has probably put a zillion miles on it by now, and except for a little fading in the paint and some upholstery stains thanks to her kid, it looks and rides much like it did the day she bought it.
I would have gone with a Maxima in the late 90’s…
While I’m a fan of Maximas from this era, the Maxima wasn’t a true competitor, with base prices about $5,000 higher than a comparable Camry or Accord.
If you’re comparing V6 models (since the Maxima could not be had with an I4), the difference wasn’t nearly that much.
True. I was shopping an MY2000 Accord V6 EX and a Maxima GLE in the fall of 1999, and the difference was probably about $1K. Ended up getting a Maxima as it had more pizzazz and I liked the smoothness of the Nissan VG engine.
Pretty darned reliable for the 4 years I owned it – unfortunately it was totaled in a collision on the freeway.
+1. My Dad had a 99 Maxima and that thing was bullitproof, and fast, and it handled well, and it looked good. By far his most trouble free car to date.
I had a 99 Maxima GLE from new and it was a magnificent car – still in great shape when traded for the G37. Weak points were oxygen sensors and coil packs and the damned power antenna (glad those are no longer around). Otherwise, torquey, sweet VQ engine, butter smooth automatic, great brakes, and good handling, very reliable. I don’t think many cross shopped the Max with the Camry or Accord, though. The sticker on mine was just under $29K in Fall 98 so it was a bit pricier.
Another vote for late ’90s Maximas. Fast, solid, reliable, huge backseat in a midsize – an important design feature that has gotten lost in recent years. A comparably equipped Camcord wasn’t much cheaper.
My father and brother had 96 Maximas. Great cars lots of power also really roomy even for my 6′ 3″ frame. One of the few cars Ive driven where I don’t slide the seat all the way back.
I passed on both of them, but the greenhouse on the Camry is my all-time favorite – the entire Camry was, IMHO, the most American-styled Japanese car ever.
We actually looked seriously at buying one in the summer of 1999, but the price tag scared us off straight to the Dodge dealer and we bought our 1999 Stratus right off the showroom floor for $6,000 less! It was a pretty nice car, too. Both cars were equipped basically the same, FWIW.
I’ve driven all the variations of both models, and owned a ’98 Accord LX myself. If I had to pick a 4 cylinder model, i’d want an Accord. I wouldn’t use the word sporty, but they do retain a bit of the nimbleness older Hondas were known for. This personality also helps to disguise some of their shortcomings, such as a fairly firm ride and road noise. If we were comparing V6 models, give me the Camry. V6 Accords do not feel nearly as light on their feet as the 4 cylinder models, and in turn, quite a bit of their charm is diminished. The Camry 1MZ is silky smooth, the suspension is supple, the cabin is hushed. A perfect car for eating up highway miles. They feel like a 4/5ths Lexus in many regards. All said, any version of either car is hardly a bad choice in the long run.
I definitely preferred the Accord–then and now. I totally agree about the 1997 Camry seeming like it was going backward in terms of design. They were absolutely great cars, but quite boring to my teenage eyes. The 2000 mini-refresh helped a little, but the Accord was always a car I liked more. And if I remember correctly, the Accord had a larger back seat than just about any direct competitors, which was kind of a big deal back then.
I think Camrys, by then, sort of had the reputation of being a car for non-car people. The Accords weren’t nearly as uncool…even young people I knew aspired to own them. I think having a coupe helped a lot, of course, but even the sedans were kind of cool for what they were. And it seemed like it was much easier to get a manual transmission in the Accord, which made it feel like more of a driver’s car. I think that manuals were only available on the bottom-level CE trim for the Camry, if memory serves correctly. But, oddly, one could get a CE V6 with the manual, which would be a rare and interesting find…
I was housesitting for a friend with a ’97 CE V6 manual many years ago, and I had to drive it once a week or so just to keep things lubed/etc. It was an odd duck to be sure, not as weird as say, a ’71 Impala with 3-on-the-tree, but it was strange to drive a fairly soft, torquey blandmobile that happened to have a 5-speed manual. I recall a fair bit of fore/aft pitching when I shifted gears, and vague, cable-actuated action. You could tell Toyota invested all their engineering energy in the automatic. By 1997, very few people deliberately selected a manual in their family sedans. Interesting to note that this guy’s next car was an Accord…
Seems that the Camry just can`t escape the “B” word. They are supposed to be “boring” because, lets face it, the vast majority of Camry buyers are not exactly car guys. They buy them on their reputation and reliability which is their big selling point. They are “safe” because Totota knows exactly who to market them to.They are fairly common in Freehold, NJ, and they seem equally at home at retirement communities , Wal Marts,or “Olive Garden ” restaurants.I`m pretty sure they will replace the Grand Marquis as the new king car at the over 55 communities pretty soon. Me? I`ll pass on one and opt for the Accord.
I had a silver ’97 Camry CE . It was the MOST trouble free out of the seven cars I’ve owned.
Yes, a little bland, but I racked up 175k miles with not one oil drip, radiator leak, or water leak in the car. I would still have it today except for the idiot who ran a stop light and ripped the front-end off.
Look around, there are plenty of this series of Camry still rolling around on the highway which is a testament to their reliability. Odd, but we need to look back twenty years to find a car that got it right.
I’m not a fan of the last two generations of Camrys. Just plain ugly.
Toyota engine sludge, or grenading Honda transmission.
Pick your poison.
As far as I know, the trans issues were only on the V6 Accords, which I’m sure accounted for a smaller percentage of sales than the I4 cars.
And IIRC the sludge issue was only on the Toyota 3.0 V6 engines, the 4 cylinders were fine.
Part of the pull back on the 1997 Camry may have been to give the Avalon more space. A coworker had that generation Camry and her dealer regularly was pushing her to upgrade. She said it was quite tempting as it was so much nicer.
Those Avalons seem bulletproof in terms of reliability…I think I see more ’95-’99 Avalons on the road than ’97-’01 Camrys.
“It’s suffice to say that this generation Camry was the more reliable of the two, due to the Honda’s transmission issues”
Well not exactly, Toyota had big issues with the V6 and sludging issues.Unlike Honda, Toyota would not budge on the issue.
That all aside, I find that the 97-01 Camry looked dated and ho hum even it came out. It paled in comparison to the 92-96 Camry (which I agree could be the best camry ever)
It certainly was not as well made as the 92-96 model.
I live in Maryland and the Maryland/DC/VA area is ground zero for the Camry but even in that area, the 97-01 is disappearing. I saw a 97-01 Camry the other day and it was the first one I saw in 2 months, by contrast I saw about 15 of the 92-96 (Including a coupe) in the same time period.
The 98-02 Accord is one car that is also disappearing around my way and yet it seems like there are more and more 94-97 Accords around every week. I had a 2001 Accord EXwith the 4 cylinder engine and manual transmission. In the 2 years i owned the thing, The thing I could most say to describe the car was that it felt cheap.
It is interesting that the 97-2001 Camry was the first Camry to be listed as the best selling midsize car and it was pretty much due to Ford and the blunder called the 96-99 Taurus. The 92-95 Taurus kept the number one spot shut to the best Camry ever made beating it by a land slide. The 96 Taurus lost a lot of ground to the 96 Camry due to the Ovid style but still manged to squeak by and take the 96 crown but in 1997 it was all over for the Taurus.
I agree. It seems the 90-97 Accords were the most hardy and that the improved rust proofing from 96-97 makes the last of those two generations the most long lived. I noticed the same with, say, 99-00 Civics and 01-02 Civics.
It certainly was not as well made as the 92-96 model.
This.
My parents have had 93 and 97 Camrys and a 95 Accord.
The 93 Camry was probably the nicest of the bunch — smooth, solid and quiet. Not exciting to drive but it had a nice heft and feeling of quality. It really upped the standards of refinement for the family sedan class.
The 97 by comparison felt cheap, with shoddy interior plastics, a numb and disconnected driving experience, and styling so bland it looks like they outsourced it to a refrigerator factory. It reminds me of Hyundais from the 90s.
One minor telling detail — the 93 had double rubber door seals for quietness, and they were soft, thick quality rubber like you’d find in a Mercedes. The 97 went back to the cheaper single seal.
The 95 Accord was sportier-feeling, not quite as smooth/quiet as the 93 Camry but a livelier driving experience – my favorite of the three.
I am starting to see a lot more 1997-2001 models in the self serve yards. I go once in a while to keep my 1992 V6 LE decent. Sometimes its harder to find a 1992-96 Model than a 1997-01 in the junkyards now.
I agree with them being a little cheaper and not as well made. The seats/foam in the seats just feels too cheap compared to the older model. It doesnt take much to feel springs and the springs show through the fabric on the front seatbacks with age. The 1997-01 Model has to have the cheapest bumpers I have ever seen on any generation of Camry. Always a rear corner pushed in, emblem missing from front and relentless peeling paint.
I do like the looks of the 1997 model but I am not ready to say goodbye to that old Toyota feeling of my ’92 just yet. Maybe one more year. And boy I wish I saw more 92-95 Taurus and Sable models around. I miss ’em.
That’s what I’ve always liked about Toyota and Honda: their ability to cut costs without cutting quality. I’ve always owned Toyotas, but I also liked Hondas. My first Toyota Camry was a 1989 LE with a V6 engine. My parents drove it for several years before I took it over.
I think I have seen evidence of that. I took the interior of my ’05 Pontiac Vibe=Toyota Matrix out including the carpet and the door panels. The purpose was to give it a good cleaning and to add some sound insulation. I was amazed how easy it was to pull apart and put together. Obviously, Toyota (NUMMI) saved a lot of time on the assembly line.
Two things to think about:
-The Accord was on four year cycles until 1998, not for the majority on the ’90s.
-Yen deflation led to cost-cutting, not currency inflation and certainly not hyperinflation. The Yen’s value appreciated against the dollar. If it were hyperinflation of the Yen, a dollar would’ve purchased many more Yen making Japanese cars cheaper. It’s the price of goods and services which “inflates,” not the value of the currency. When goods and services become cheaper, often due to lessened demand, this is called “deflation,” and the value of currency actually can increase because (among other things) less of it buys the same good or service. This is what happened in Japan in the ’90s and is a current risk in the Eurozone; both are export oriented economies and especially vulnerable to deflation.
The rear view of a ’97-01 Camry always reminds me of my old ’78 Datsun 200SX. Those skinny wrap-around tail-lights and the recessed license plate area are quite similar; fortunately the resemblance ends there!
Always felt the 97 Camry’s styling was a step backward over the earlier models. The tail lights especially look like an afterthought: a strip that follows no line or curve, nothing imaginative here. Like a Ford Escort’s lights tacked on at the last minute. Very poor integration, but not as bad as the last generation with it’s WTF shapes.
I see a lot of the 97 in the Hyundai Sonata of two Gens back though. Much better execution and compared with what came afterward looks like a million bucks.
If I were transported back in time and had to buy a new mid-size sedan in 1998, I would have definitely chosen a four-cylinder Accord with a manual transmission, knowing what we know now. That said, NOT having the knowledge of 2015, I would have probably fallen for…a VW Passat.
I thought at the time, and still do now, that the ’97 Camry was about as bland as bland could get. A car designed to blend in, a car that took no chances whatsoever. It took inoffensive to an art form. Sure, they were solid, smooth, reliable cars. The ultimate appliance. And, for many drivers (most drivers?), that’s what a car should be. It stopped being a symbol of personal style and freedom years ago, and as an appliance, the Camry excels.
The Accord? It still holds a little bit of the “old Honda” philosophy, which dictated that even a family sedan should be light on its feet, should have just a dash of sport thrown in with its practicality. It’s no “sports sedan” by a long shot but that hint is still visible. Plus it’s much more distinctive-looking, without crossing the line into the polarizing category. So that would by my choice, by a country mile. I tend to agree with Jim Grey that it was all downhill from here, though my personal favorite Accords are still the ’86-’89 and ’90-’93 generations.
As to your assertion that most don’t “cross over”, I knew one person that did, though not by choice. A friend showed up to college (fall ’98) with a ’91 Camry LE, and after it was totaled in an accident sophomore year, his parents bought him a ’93 Accord EX to replace it. Very similar specs in that both were high-trim models with the 4-cyl and automatic. He claimed he preferred the Camry of the two, but I do find it telling that he kept that Accord for 12 years and then replaced it with a Civic in 2011!
About five years ago when I was looking to replace my 1997 Tacoma with something more comfortable for commuting I test drove a Toyota Solara v6 and Accord v6 (both of this generation) back to back. For me, the Toyota was the hands down winner. It was smoother, more comfortable, and felt more substantial. Hondas and Acuras have always felt that way to me- kind of dinky. They must get by on their driving dynamics, which admittedly I’ve never really gotten to push very aggressively. I did however find the Accord to be MUCH more attractive than the Camry/Solara, so in some ways I was a little disappointed.
I ended up with a first gen Toyota Avalon with super low miles. Great car.
Great article – certainly made reading about each of these cars much more interesting by comparing and contrasting the two.
Count my parents in as though who crossed over (and back, sort of). In 1989, after a lifetime of mostly big GM cars, and then a dark dalliance with a Chrysler Le Baron convertible (my mom just had to have a car like her ’69 Olds Delta 88 convertible) and a 1986 Audi 5000 (my dad’s insistence), they bought a 1989 Camry LE V6. Their friends had one, and it seemed to offer everything they really needed, as they had started to think more practically. Very good car, but as soft as they come. They followed this with a 1993 Camry, again a V6 LE (and kept the ’89). Worlds better than the ’89, this car really did seem like a mini-Lexus. Smooth, quiet, and solid, something about the way in which it did its business reminded me of a Mercedes W123 or W124.
In 1998, when it came time to trade in the ’89 Camry, I went shopping with my dad. We looked at the Camry, and then I encouraged him to look at an Accord. This time around, he felt the 4 cylinder cars would suffice. I thought the Camry was in no way comparable to its predecessor, and the Accord seemed like a much better choice.
Ultimately, they really didn’t prefer the Accord to the ’93 V6 Camry, and while my dad liked the Accord, both parents thought it was “noisy”, which I took to mean as road noise and a less isolated feeling.
The next car was a 2004 Avalon, which was perhaps too isolated, but a great road car for long trips.
Too bad they didn’t buy a V-6 Accord. It may not have felt as noisy as the 4-cylinder and then you would really be comparing apples to apples. It isn’t fair to compare a 4-cylinder Accord to a 6-cylinder Camry and vice versa.
I would probably prefer the Honda overall, although the Toyota has the more attractive exterior to my eyes. But I prefer stickshifts.
However, I think this comparison is incomplete without a chevy and a ford. The Taurus and the Lumina were strong competitors in this time period. In fact, I think the chevy was the best car for the money at that time being the best equipped base model.
“I think the chevy was the best car for the money at that time being the best equipped base model.”
Absolutely the best choice for those who preferred to avoid both handling and refinement, and to cross reliability and resale value off the list as well. 🙂
LOL
you really made me laugh really loud!
I have to admit I’ve never driven the Lumina but I did date a girl who had one and I rode shotgun a few times. Soft floaty suspension and big sofa like leather seats and a motor that gives you passing speeds on the interstate *right now* without revving much.
2 things I do not care for in a car:
1. center consoles(will make exceptions for sticks)
2. floor shifted automatics
3. seats that feel like I’m sitting on the floor
My most preferred configuration would be a non-split bench seat with a floor mounted stick shift and an inline or stagger bore 6cylinder. I know that doesn’t exist though.
I know I can’t count
The only vehicles left with bench seat are full-size pickup trucks and the Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon (lowest trim level only). And even then it’s got a flip-down console (which, IMO, is better than a one-piece bench).
Yes, and I’m upset about that. The last cars with 3 passenger seating in the front were, I believe:
2007 Taurus
2011 Impala
2011 Buick Lacross(?)
2011 Crown Vic
I have no idea what was the last manual transmission car with bench seats but I bet it was before 1985. Maybe even before 1975.
You could get a bench seat with a manual on the ’79 Chevy Malibu, and presumably some other members of that generation of A-bodies. So after ’75, but I’d imagine you’re right that it was in the first half of the 80’s that the option went away (I believe the Malibu last offered a manual in ’80 or ’81, it was gone by ’82 unless I’m mistaken.)
James, you win for best comment of the day 🙂
I think the Taurus was fairly competent compared to the Camry, but not the Honda. The styling was the BIG letdown, and they’re more susceptible to corrosion than Camcords of this era (really Tauruses were bad rusters all the way to the end of the 4th gens). Luminas were/are, pardon my french, shit. We had a best W body thread not long ago, well the Lumina was by far the worst. Bland styling, bad quality, horrid interiors, awful engines (excluding the 3800), handling that can only be compared to a Radio Flyer wagon and they even smell bad, a legitimate offense of every sense. Cars like that are exactly what made the Camry the success it is.
Funny you should mention smell, as all my personal experiences with the Lumina’s successor, the W-body Impala, have included a rather unpleasant smell. Not totally foul or unbearable, but just a heavy plasticky smell that I’ve found in every one of these cars, regardless of year. Granted the majority have been rentals, so who knows what chemicals they use to odorize them.
John, if you’re going to include a Ford and a Chevy, which sounds like a decent comparison, then also include a Mopar – one of the Cloud cars. From my personal experience, a first generation Dodge Stratus base model with the 2.0L and 5-speed manual was the best of the mid-sized cars at the time. See, the Stratus also offered the 2.4L 4cyl. or 2.5L 6cyl., but the 2.0L with the 5-speed was faster, 0-60 or higher, as well as offered significantly higher fuel mileage. Only a year and a half ago, I made a 500 mile (plus) round-trip and made it home with the fuel above the low-fuel light; we’re talking an even 40 mpg! I had to run 65-75 to avoid getting run over by the semi trucks and other commuters out on the interstate. And, the car had well over 200K miles. This was certainly not the first time I achieved 40 mpg without even trying. In all honesty, it more regularly gave me 38-39 mpg in good weather – meaning not winter. Overall mpg average for all miles put on my car has been 36.1 MPG. In conclusion this Dodge had dependability and reliability equaling if not surpassing that of the Toyota and Honda of the same time. No trips to the dealer ever. Nothing more than routine maintenance at rather long intervals. Still has the factory stainless steel exhaust system at 227K miles. Car & Driver loved it’s Road Test of a manual trans Stratus like mine. My absolute best car ever. So, from my own (admittedly limited) personal experience, I proclaim the Dodge Stratus superior to the Ford, Chevy, Honda and Toyota of the same time period. In my experience, there seem to be far more 1st generation Stratus sedans still running around – and in very good condition – than the newer 2nd generation Stratus sedan. YMMV. Oh, forgot to mention that I’d rate the ride and handling of the 1st generation Stratus, especially with the manual trans, as superior to that of the Camry and the Accord. IMHO, they managed to get basically everything right with that first generation Stratus. Mid sized sedans seem to have grown a bit larger in the past 20 years, but that Stratus (and near identical Cirrus and Breeze) still have a large trunk with considerable useful space that has hauled far more stuff than any other car I’ve owned. I am speaking of purchasing it used and owning it for more than 14 years, so I definitely know of what I speak in regard to the 1999 Stratus sedan.
Actually, up until 2011 you could get a stick shift Camry. A co-worker of mine in my last job had a 97-2001 Camry with a stick shift. They are hard to find but they are out there. Back in 2011 I was looking at Toyota products(before buying that POS Scion XB) and they had a 2011 Camry with a 5 speed manual transmission on the Carmax Toyota Scion of Laurel MD.
I have had brief drives in both of them. I vividly remember enjoying a weekend spend with the Accord, a 4 cyl/stick car. One of the scoutmasters with a son’s scout troop borrowed my Club Wagon for the weekend and I got his Accord. I liked that car a lot. Disclosure – we have been Honda people going back to the 88 Accord my wife bought new.
The Camry? My stepmom had one, and I know I drove it, but for the life of me, I cannot remember the experience. In the looks department, I actually liked the styling of these better than the prior generation.
When I totaled my 94 Accord Coupe 2 years ago I was in need of a replacement car fast. I know the owners of a local small used car store near my house and went by one morning to see what they had in stock. Well, when I saw that they had a one owner 1999 Accord EX sedan with 141k miles on it, I knew I had to have it. They were asking $3995.00 and I got them to sell it to me for $3500.00. So far, it has been the best $3500.00 I have ever spent. I currently have 172,000 miles on it and it drives like a new car. It is a fantastic road car and eats up the miles with ease. So far the only additional money I have spent on it has been for brake pads and rotors, an ABS wheel sensor and a new timing belt only because I was unsure if the original owner had changed it or not. Everyone that rides in it cannot believe it is a 16 year old automobile! I love driving it, too. It is comfortable, gets great gas mileage – 26 mpg all the time – and handles great for a mid-sized car. I have owned many Hondas over the years and have to say this may be one of my favorites, right up there with my ’93 Accord EX 5-speed wagon and 1980 Prelude I had in college. There is something about the lower dash/cowl on the earlier Hondas that give you a certain feeling when driving. You get fantastic visibility plus the road is right there in front of you. I think my ’93 did this best, but the ’99 is very close to it. All of the controls work beautifully, the a/c is ice cold, and overall it is the best car I could have purchased for a mere $3500 bucks!
Glad you are happy with your Accord. That was the exact same color as my aunt’s ’98.
Thanks Brendan. That color – Heather Mist – was so popular that I see at least 3 of them a week still to this day roaming around the Providence area where I live. It shows the reliability and durability of these cars, too. Luckily, the one I bought had been garaged and was owned by an older couple. There is not a bit of rust on it and the interior is like new.
My parents-in-law bought a 2001 Accord new and still have it. It looks like new, because it has always been garaged. They haven’t driven it that much, either. It is an entirely competent, economical car, but some people have trouble with Honda seats. Honda’s seats fit some of us very nicely and we find them comfortable; for other people, they have all the comfort of a park bench and fail to offer proper thigh and lower back support. My father-in-law has that issue.
Their other car? A Prius. They’re on their second one, and they love it. To us, it’s an impeccably put-together appliance.
We had a 2003 Civic Hybrid that had CVT issues. We went to a 2009 Camry Hybrid that has been behaving nearly perfectly, except for needing a replacement water pump. In the fit-and-finish department, I would say that the Civic (built in Japan) had the better finished interior. Everything was perfectly fitted, with very tight tolerances. The Camry, built in Kentucky, has an impeccable paint job. The interior fitting is not quite as good as it was on the Civic. However, the seats are significantly more comfortable; both of us agree on that. And it’s quieter than the Civic was. Is it as much fun to drive? No. And probably that 2001 Accord is more fun to drive, too.
I always find it interesting how one person may think a seat is comfortable and another one thinks it isn’t. To me, Toyota seats are very uncomfortable, almost like sitting on a sponge. My back kills me whenever I ride in any Toyota for any length of time. There is a total lack of lateral support and I cannot sit in the seat without squirming and getting severe pain in my lower back. So for me, personally, I like (and need) the extra support that the Honda seats provide.
I find with any Toyota I have to have a power driver seat. I loved my wife’s base 2003 Highlander 4 cyl and wanted to take it over in ’10 when we got the Edge. But I couldn’t take that manual driver seat for more than 10 minutes…
We had an Accord of that generation, a dark blue 99 EX with leather, 4-cylinder, and automatic. We gave it to our daughter as a sort of a wedding present, and she did need to have the transmission rebuilt at something like 250k miles. I wouldn’t be surprised if it has 270 or 280k on it by now, and it’s still in daily use and looking good. It gets a lot of use too as their other vehicle is a 2014 4-door 3/4-ton pickup set up for a camper, not exactly the ideal grocery-getter.
Ive driven/ridden in a few of both over the years. To call the Honda significantly ‘sportier’….I dunno about that, but I guess its all a matter of perspective. Im sure someone makes a lot more savory variety of white bread than Wonder but when your tastes lean more towards extra hot lamb vindaloo, extra hot Jamaican jerk chicken, or habanero salsa…all white bread is the same.
These get the job done if your only aspiration is to start at point A and then appear at point B. But between engine and transmission failures mentioned…Any Detroit product would get skewered over such a thing, whereas it seems that Honda and Toyota get a pass, more or less. Personally, when something is this blah and is boiled down to the most flavorless box on wheels that will ferry you where you want to go, that’s a HUGE sacrifice in terms of fun. For that tradeoff, I would expect a minimum of 500K completely trouble free miles, and 40mpg. Otherwise, why not spend about the same money and get something interesting?
When I was in college, a buddy of mine bought a brand new ’98 Camry. He was assistant mgr at a restaurant and was making ok money by now…well compared to some of us, anyway. He had a habit of spending way past his means and making some odd choices. A 23 year old single guy replacing a stolen Jeep with a beige Camry (to the tune of about $25K) saying ‘its time to grow up’ left more than a few of us scratching our heads. 6 months into it, he couldn’t pay the note and his mom took over it. When he came home with a ’94 Nissan pickup (single cab, 2wd solid white) that’s probably the only time Ive ever seen a person choose to buy a car and come home actually mad about it!
The Accord is 100% sportier than the Camry. The suspension setup, overall feel and drivability compared to the Camry are night and day. I’m not knocking the Camry, as it is a great reliable car too. But having driven and owned both, the Accord is by far the sportier of the two.
I liked this one quite a bit, an all-white Accord Type-R from the late nineties. It had a naturally aspirated 2.2 liter VTEC engine, 210 hp.
In those days Honda was often called the “Japanese BMW” for its performance, handling and build quality. A car for enthusiasts.
In the past decade Honda’s market share has drastically diminished though. Now and then I see a new or recent model Jazz (Fit ?), but that’s it, basically.
Front.
Good point to bring up; The 6th generation is where the European, Japanese, and North American Accords diverged from one another, all with different dimensions. Smallest of the three was the European variant, followed by the Japanese car (which revered back to the compact class after the 5th generation). North American cars were a fair bit larger than the other two. The introduction of the Acura TSX in 2004 brought the Japanese Accord lineage back into the North American market. Toyota made a similar move, separating the Japanese Camry, into a smaller model than North america beginning in 1990.
Confusingly New Zealand has all of them.
In the eighties and nineties, when Honda still sold a decent number of cars, it was certainly not an “appliance”-brand. Honda built cars for the enthusiast, with its high revving 4 cylinder VTEC engines and excellent transmissions. Nimble cars, all of them.
European Honda Accords are different models to US Hondas. Honda had the Japanese BMW reputation in Australia too until the mid ’90’s with VTEC Preludes and Integras. When Honda decontented existing models and starting selling stodgy US versions of CRV’s, Legends and Accords. that rep was lost.
An ex of mine had a great 1993 Integra, great handling revvy motor, but serious lack of torque, but most non turbo 4 cylinder motors back then did.
I had two Accord coupes, a ’95 and a ’99, so I’m definitely on Team Honda and would echo the positive comments for the Accord. After a couple of unattractive generations, the current Accord is one I wouldn’t kick out of my garage.
My biggest complaint was the absolutely crappy paint Honda used on the ’99 Mine was Black Currant Pearl, Honda’s name for a deep maroon (purple maybe?), and while it was a striking color, the paint would nick or scratch if you so much as gave it a dirty look. I bought it new, and by the time I sold it to my sister to give to my niece in 2005, the clearcoat was starting to peel on the hood, roof and trunk.
One thing that always stood out for me in the Camry/Accord comparison was the interior. The Camry always looked incredibly cheap to me. Everything was the same brown/black/gray plastic — even the shift lever, parking brake. Impeccably made maybe, but still chintzy. Even the Lexus-lite 1992-96 Camrys were like this. On the Accord, however, these touch points were all chrome (or chrome-plated plastic). It’s a very minor detail, but it does brighten up the interior. The two-tone dash and door panels also add some class.
I’ve always thought Camrys were designed for people who see a car as a necessary evil and its dullness was exactly what they wanted. This is likely true for many Accord drivers as well. Reliability and resale value are both important, practical considerations that have made these cars the default option for a mid-size sedan. But for people who also like cars and like to drive, the Accord is much more rewarding.
The original widebody Camry released here in 89/90 was a quite different animal to the watered down version sold on the world market in 92 leather was standard there was no decontent cheaper model they were all fully equipped even with standard CD player, They had nice tight suspension and fast steering racks and came with a 240kmh top speed very entertaining cars my sister had one new a mate had one very used recently,
For world consumption the engine was redesigned and taller final drive introduced giving a much lower top speed but improved fuel consumption there were 3 grades of suspension tune for different markets part numbers show US and JDM are the same NZ kept the stiffer spring and shock ratings and the faster steering racks, my sister bough a new world Camry in 94 it was a almost totally different car but reliable as the sun nothing ever failed while she had it and it was driven hard a lot of the time. My mate ditched his 91 it was very worn but still very fast and comfortable for a 406 Pug diesel and the Pug is a nicer drive more comfortable quieter better handling a better car all round though not as fast off the line being a diesel 4.
“The original widebody Camry released here in 89/90 was a quite different animal to the watered down version sold on the world market in 92 leather was standard there was no decontent cheaper model they were all fully equipped even with standard CD player, They had nice tight suspension and fast steering racks and came with a 240kmh top speed”
Your exaggerations on a car website are well known.240 kmh for any late 80’s early 90’s in a standard Camry is absurd, Toyota would NOT have an FWD engine powerful enough for 200 kmh, so impossible. A special build NZ only wide body 89/90 Camry?? Development of the widebody Camry began early 1988, so impossible also.
Well said, your last two paragraphs pretty much sum up how I fell about these two cars. Even to this day, Camry interiors are almost sickening to me. They may use decent quality materials, but to the eye they are not pleasing. I’d much rather look at a Malibu interior than a Camry; not as nice but at least more interesting. Accord interiors have always been more attractive and high quality in my opinion.
I have to disagree with you, Brendan and Gary, although I do understand this is subjective. Some of the Camry bits of this generation do feel cheap to me as well, but in comparison to the cheap bits of the Accord, they aren’t in places you typically touch every drive. Compared to a Camry, the turn signal and wiper stalks feel incredibly cheap. Door locks, too. I also didn’t particularity see the appeal of the fuzzy fabric in my ’98 Accord LX. Those details really stood out to me in a negative light with my Accord.
The only cheap parts I have ever had in any Accord interior that I’ve owned have been the door handles on the 1992/93 Accords. They always broke/cracked and were easily replaced, but they were definitely cheaply made. Other than that, Accord interiors have the edge over the Camry IMO. I’ve never had any cheap feeling parts in my Accords. All of the buttons, switches and controls have had a high quality feel to them. And they look nice. The Toyota interiors are depressing and cheap looking, once again IMO.
I remember seeing this generation Camry when new in the 1990’s and longing to have one. At this time I still owned my little Chevy Sprint and wasn’t in the market for another car. Something about that tail end attracted me. I agree the contemporary Accord is a good-looking car; I must confess I have never driven any Honda and I can’t compare. But considering only aesthetics I think the Camry wins. I like a simple appearance, and the Accords look a little “busy” if that makes sense. Today I drive the Corolla from that same era (2000) and like it more than any Camry I have driven only because I like a smaller car.
I’ll take the Honda.
Weird thing that sticks with me about this generation Camry was from elementary school – at recess there were two places we could play outdoors, the jungle gym area and this open black asphalt area for playing basketball and whatnot, it was separated by the teacher parking lot by a raised sidewalk and wasn’t for parking. One day this generation Camry was just randomly parked there and stood out like a sore thumb alone there, and stayed there for a month in the exact same spot. Never found out what happened to it but it fascinated me the whole time. Thinking back on it the car had to be brand new at the time since I’m pretty sure this was spring 1997(I was in third grade) and I thought the time the car was much older.
I’m a male and I always liked the Toyota Camry’s of this vintage over the Honda Accord’s, if you had to do a comparison of the previous generation 1992-96 Camry and the 1994-97 Honda Accord I would slightly choose the Accord of the previous generation, too bad the Honda Accord’s of this era were prone with transmission failures on the V6 models, I always felt the 1997-01 Camry was the last great era of the Camry’s before they started to look cheap and boring, I also see more Camry’s than Accord’s of this vintage.
For the Camry was the 5 speed only available on the CE model while the 5 speed was available on all trim models with the 4 cylinder?
My mom had a ’98 Camry CE with the 5-speed manual which bought, grudgingly, to replace her ’91 Civic hatchback when I was about 15. The Civic was racking up the miles and Dad at 6’3 and me at 6’0 were not exactly all that comfortable swapping out backseat positions on future long family trips to check out colleges.
We cross shopped this, the Civic sedan, and the Accord. We looked at the Civic first because mom was (is) a cheap Yankee, a Honda devotee, and didn’t want to upgrade to an Accord if she didn’t have to. Mercifiully, the little thing was too small in back and Dad didn’t like the driver’s seat either.
We crossed the lot–onto the Accord! We liked the looks a lot. I was already saving up to buy a big boat like my grandfather’s but had to admit the ’98 would’ve been my Japanese sedan of choice by its appearance. We came up to a nice dark green one. We got in. It looked great, all the classic Honda touches. But it never made it for even a test drive. Once Dad and I gave the back seat the “tall guy” test, it was out.
Dismayed, my Mom agreed to go over to the Toyota dealer next town over. The Taurus or GM were not even considered, given my parents Anti-Big Three bias. Mom had happy memories of driving a friend’s mother’s ’93 Camry we had borrowed for a day, as a really well made, quiet car. I had recently taken a trip to All-State with my band director in his new V6 ’97 Camry LE automatic and had really enjoyed it. It had been smooth, quiet, and rode kind of like the big cars I liked, with a bit more pitching and such due to the FWD and shorter wheelbase.
When we got into the back of the Camry on the lot, Dad and I gave it the tall guy seal of approval. While Dad didn’t feel it was exactly “excellent” back there, he said he could live with it. At 3 inches shorter, I certainly could. Mom bought the low end 4 cylinder CE model, with 5 speed manual. White with grey interior. Reluctantly, she accepted the a/c and power windows that came with it, having been greatly opposed to these in the past.
The Cam was mom’s last manual car. She considered it to be a huge boat and named it the “white whale”, though it looked quite compact when Dad and I brought home my ’87 Crown Vic a year and a half later when I got my license.
We took it on trips up to Maine, down to Virginia, and out to western New York looking at colleges. I learned to do my long-distance highway driving in it as my parents enjoyed giving up the wheel for an hour or two. It was a competent and fairly comfortable car, though mom was disappointed that it couldn’t pull 40 mpg on the highway like her Civics had. Also, she thought it never quite measured up to that ’93 Camry we had driven for a day.
The transmission crapped out rather expensively on a hilly highway in early 2005. Mom had been using it to commute and decided she wanted something more fuel efficient. The Camry was sold. A 2005 Prius was purchased.
Me? I thought the Accord was a nicer looking car inside and out and definitely one of the peaks in Accord styling. But we tall guys didn’t like the fit. The Camry did the trick. And of course the memorable “TV Guy” commercials for it that aired at the time acted as a kind of validation on our family’s choice. A nice bit of 90s nostalgia. Perhaps the ’77 Caprice of the late 90s?
I only ever drove a V6 Camry out of these cars, even then the V6 was a bit more motor than the chassis needed, but as the sales show Toyota has judged the market superbly – clean, non-confronting styling (although they are pushing that recently), same for the interior, and comfort focused driving manners. For most people, who would never think of going for a drive on a twisty road for the fun of it, they are perfect.
When the American Accord split from the European model (aka Acura TSX) in the 2002 7th-gen the local media noted quite a difference in the driving feel between the two. Toyota tried to do a couple of sports versions of the Camry (and subsequent Aurion which is realy just a V6 Camry) but they were not popular.
The 92-96 Camry was way more stylish and interesting than its successor. Its one weakness – and virtually all of my friends experienced the problem – was automatic transmission failure. In every case Toyota replaced the transmission at no cost, even when the warranty had expired. I could not believe the 97 when it was introduced – really dull, disappeared in a parking lot. The taillights were ugly and Toyota soon spruced them up. I wasn’t very fond of the 98 Accord compared to the earlier model, either. It didn’t look as sporty or sleek and signaled the future when the Accord would grow and grow. The interior was nice, however, as the pics illustrate. Both very good, if not inspiring, cars.
Hmmm. My ex had transmission issues on a ’97 Camry, not on the ’92 that she owned before that. The first trans on the ’97 went kaput around 110K miles; it was replaced with a salvage yard unit that lasted to 196K, after which she decided to call it quits on the car. Toyota must have fixed the problem because she now has a Solara that is well north of 200K on its original transmission.
My sister had a 1992 Camry that she loved, although she too experienced a bad transmission at 100k miles.
My 1992 V6 LE had a transmission failure at 163k. Swapped it out, and drove it to 211k. Trans and engine were still good, but the power steering had a major fail.
I was in high school when these versions of the Accord and Camry were new. In suburban San Diego where I grew up, “Fast and the Furious”-style rice rockets and modding were all the rage. The Accord was undoubtedly the “cooler” car — as were Hondas in general compared to Toyotas, as Toyota was already losing its enthusiast following in the late ’90s (and the ’00 Celica was a bit of a dud). No doubt the Accord Coupe helped with this perception. I always thought the Accord coupes with the triangle taillights were quite sharp and have aged very well.
NOBODY thought the Camry was cool in the high school lot. It was what boring parents bought. “Cooler” parents bought the Accord.
Also, FWIW, my next-door neighbor was a Toyota salesman and had one of the “fat” Camrys, I believe a ’95. My parents were outliers in that they were a bit older and preferred traditional American cars (think Lincolns and Cadillacs). I had heard from everyone (and read in the rags) how great and high-quality these mini-Lexus Camrys were.
Finally, one day my neighbor gave me a lift somewhere. Excited to experience the amazing experience that was the Best Camry Evah!!!, I came away quite unimpressed. Like many said above, the interior seemed cheap and nothing even remotely close to the level of the ’96 Lexus LS400 my dad had for a brief time as a company car. I remember thinking, “what is the big deal?”
I continue to believe that all generations of Camry are overrated, saved by pure reliability. And agree with all who say the ’07 Camry was a huge step back. The following generation was even more of a step back, bloated and Buick-y to my eyes.
A ES300 Lexus is merely a 3L Camry with gold badges no other modifications.
Nope. The ES300/Windom was a four-door “hardtop”: Different exterior panels and roof/window treatment on the wide-body Camry inner shell, some different interior trim and a different dashboard. It’s obviously still very similar to the Camry Gracia, but it is not identical.
KiwiBryce strikes again with BS
I’m so glad that my young days were passed in a time when American people bought American cars.
I didn’t make that time, quite, but am happy to have been around long enough to remember most of the 1980s, a transition time when a lot of people still bought cars designed in the American style even as Hondas, Toyotas, and German sedans were increasing market share and, more importantly, dominance of design cues. I feel like I got to see a little of everything because there were also 70s cars still on the road into the early 90s, while the early 90s itself saw a lot of more aerodynamic designs.
In a less positive sense, being around for the 80s gave me the false understanding that there was real choice in the automotive market, because I remember clearly when the ’87 MB 300E, ’87 Cadillac Brougham, ’87 Honda Accord, ’87 Volvo 240, and ’87 Mercury Grand Marquis were all offered for sale as new cars simultaneously.
This creates a false impression that there will always be this kind of variety available, and leads to disappointment 25 years later when everything looks like a variation on a Camcord. Of course, everything looked a lot more similar in some ways pre-1980s here as well when foreign cars were less popular, but the point is that it was a transition age that gave a false sense of variety that hasn’t existed before or since to my impressionable young mind.
Well, the Accord and Camry might have had import origins, but after over 30 years in North America, both are”assimilated” immigrants whose characteristics have adapted to American tastes and needs, and has been domestically assembled with high local content (over 70%) for years now.
Funny comment as both cars built in America? In factories staffed by American and most part made in America.
Oh both companies not American owned.
No wonder most US citizens are mocked worldwide.
It’s interesting to see almost a hundred comments on a couple of cars that are routinely dismissed as dull and boring, and often get lumped together as “Camcords.” I see plenty of both on the roads around here, and when I see a Camry in front of me, my initial reaction is always, “I should pass that car when I get a chance.” A really, really large percentage of Camry drivers live up to the timid/unskilled/slow Toyota driver stereotype. There are also plenty of exceptions (partly because there are so darn many Camrys out there), but I don’t think I could make a similar generalization about Accord drivers. (I know that in some parts of the world, Honda has a reputation as an old person’s car, but that’s not the case here in the US.)
I’ve thought the same thing! I don’t like to stereotype either, but nine times out of ten, if I’m stuck behind somebody who can’t find their gas pedal, they’re driving a Camry, Corolla or a Prius. Or a Chrysler minivan.
Lets not forget pretty much ANY Buick made in the last 25 years. Any Mercury, Lincoln or Cadillac made in the last 35 or 40 years. Some stereotypes are, well…..true.
My 73-year-old mother is still a bit of a leadfoot in her ’05 LeSabre, as well as on her previous Centurys and Skylark.
I don’t see as many pokey Buicks or Grand Marquis since every other car in Oregon is a Prius or Subaru Outback. The geezers here seem to mostly drive Camrys.
Older people definitely seem to pick the Camry over the Accord most of the time. It is like the Delta 88 of the new millenium. I always seem to have a gray late model Camry in my way whenever I am trying to make time! My current 1999 Accord EX was driven by an older couple. I spoke with them when I bought it as they had left prescription glasses in the eye glass holder. They said they loved the car but after 14 years they were simply ready for something new. Guess what they replaced it with? Yes, a Camry. When I asked why they went for the Camry instead of the Accord they said the only reason was that the Camry had a softer ride!
Well, I definitely agree Toyota has had the reputation as a boring car for a while (though I’d only qualify the Avalon as having a geezerly reputation).
You’re right that an Accord doesn’t always carry that same image, on the other hand Accords and Civics have become a lot more popular with “old persons” in the past 15 years or so. Used to be I’d routinely see our oldest citizens driving Grand Marquises, Fifth Avenues, and LeSabres (I mean the ones who weren’t driving full on luxury models like Mercedes and Cadillac, which continues). Today? Most of those cars have been out of production 10-20 years, and the oldest people I see today not driving luxury cars are getting out of Civic sedans, Legacy station wagons, and sometimes Accords–but yes, not as often as Camrys.
Not quite what to say here, because I have no interest in 4 door sedans. To me they are nothing but dull boring transportation devices (even BMWs)The Accord coupe may have been another matter. Toyota did make a Camry coupe, including a convertible, called the Solara. I even considered buying the convertible. Honda and Toyota just can’t seem to get past bland and boring no matter what they make. Style is just not their thing. I seriously doubt either of the sedans were available with a manual shift, which might have put a little fun into driving one. Aside from being boring people movers, I can only find one complaint about these cars. I noticed that certain model years of both came with those horrible filler panels, which I call clinkers, between the rear window and C pillar. Those are about the tackiest looking things I’ve ever seen. Surely they could have styled them to eliminate those things
Those ugly black filler panels were quite influential, it seems like every new car since 2008 has had them, not only at the corners of the rear side windows, but in the front ahead of the mirrors! Ugh
Either of these vehicles would have been a fantastic choice. Wifey wanted a two-door and did the research to find a suitable candidate. We bought a 2000 Accord Coupe EX-V6 with the automatic. Serviced it regularly, trans and all. Started leaking at the diff at 100,000 miles. The dealer replaced it under warranty, no hassle. Today, the odometer reads 378,000 and we’re not disappointed. Still gets regular service, still looks quite decent. Replacement trans still works fine. I change the fluid every other oil change. Always genuine Honda fluid. Expensive but apparently worth every dime. We do avoid steep mountain passes in the summer; stop and go traffic is no problem.
The tough part will be trying to find a replacement car someday. The Accords and Camrys of that era had the right mix of power, weight, and accessories to be long-term reliable rides. I don’t believe that today’s over-contented, limited-torque EcoTurbos will hold up for folks like me that want to get every cent out of their significant transportation investment. Or do I expect too much?
The new Accord coupes are quite nice, and they’ve shrunk a bit from the bloated previous generation. A 2015 Accord coupe is only about 3 inches longer than a 2000. Interiors have always been a Honda strong point, and I’m very impressed with the current Accord’s.
Even the “base” LX-S does come with a high level of technology and luxuries, and the engines do have modern tech like cylinder deactivation, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Not crazy about the CVT in the 4-cylinder, but the V6 gets a regular automatic, and both engines come with a 6-speed manual if that’s your thing.
Not crazy about either one but given the choice it would have been the Accord, hands down. Just soooooooooooooooo much bland going on with that gen Camry.
Good article indeed and I too am going with the Accord since I hear it is a more engaging vehicle. In Central New York Camries of this generation appear to be more rust resistant than Accords. On a related note I find it interesting that Honda sold the boxier (one airbag?) Accord from 90-93 a full two model years after the 92-96 Camry came out. I know of at least one person who bought a 97 Accord because the 97 Camry no longer had the station wagon body style available.
The CB Accord (1990–1993) initially had motorized front shoulder belts.
1992 was the year Honda went back to regular seatbelts and standard driver side airbag. The wagons had the driver side airbag first when introduced in 1991. In 1993, the SE Accords had dual airbags.
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100103190253/lossimpson/es/images/9/97/Seymour_Skinner88.png
(the true judge of all things ‘Camry’….)
Accord for me.
The styling’s better (it’s got a personality), it’s a Honda and the that interior is a home run compared with the Toyota..
While no one would mistake it for a sports car, the Accord tends to have relatively livelier handling, though at the expense of some road noise. OTOH, the Camry is tuned to have a softer and quieter ride.
Either will fill the bill for a long lived, reliable daily driver car.
Interesting test this one.Australia had both of these.I don’t know much of the Camry but know a little about the Accord better known in my part of the world as Homer.It was about the size of where an Early Commodore was two decades earlier.Funny we fast forward a decade or two since this and we have these small cars that make either redundant.I test drove a second generation Ford Focus 2.0L CL and in all areas except overall size it came up better than the 92-96 Toyota.200cc smaller but more power and torque.shame due to garage size couldn’t buy it as it was too wide and the people who built our home had next to no idea what the width of the new generation of small to medium cars is.
Very good article! I have had experience with both of these cars as my first car was a 2000 Camry LE 4 cylinder and a few years back I had a 2001 Accord EX V6 as a cheap, beater car while I saved up for something nicer. Both cars have their strengths and weaknesses, but I have always preferred the Accord’s way of doing things.
My grandmother was a two time Accord owner (she owned an ’85 LX and a ’92 LX) and when her ’92 LX hit the 8 year old mark she started looking for a new car. Her first stop was the local Honda dealership where she checked out a beautiful dark green 2000 Accord SE with aftermarket leather installed. I remember her telling me she didn’t like how loud the Accord was and she wasn’t a huge fan of the styling. My old neighbors at the time had just purchased a two tone White/Oak 2000 Camry LE V6 and after one test drive of that car she ordered her own Camry for herself. I remember being 10 years old at the time and absolutely furious she didn’t buy the Accord instead. Her Camry LE was a 4 cylinder but it had just about every option you could think of: leather, sunroof, alloy wheels, two tone paint, keyless entry, etc. When she pulled up to the house after getting the Camry I honestly thought it was a Lexus. It was a beautiful car and I can see why she preferred it to the Accord. It looked more luxurious and presented itself very well with the two tone paint. About 3 years after she purchased the car she told me she preferred her Accord’s as they were more fun to drive than the Camry.
My grandmother passed in 2006 just as I was turning 16 and I needed a car. My mom and dad purchased the Camry from her estate for $10k and at the time the car only had 32k miles on it. Even though I had been furious about her buying that car at the time, I grew to love it. Smooth, comfortable, great gas mileage and it was super reliable. I drove that car two years and put 30k more miles on it before I purchased my own car, a 2000 Cadillac STS (a car I wanted for years). That Camry was then passed down for my two brothers to drive and eventually became our spare car. My mom still drives that car today and after 16 years and 118k miles it has become the most reliable vehicle my family has ever owned. Other than basic maintenance it has been perfect.
Around the 2014 timeframe I had been through several cars and my car at the time, a 2004 Cadillac Deville was starting to nickel and dime me to death. I ended up selling that car for $4300 and was on the lookout for a 6th Gen Accord. For some reason I had always been a big fan of that body style and I knew that other than the transmission problems they were solid cars. I rode by a little buy here pay here lot and spotted a Satin Silver 2001 Accord EX V6 for $4k. The body was beat up and it had some rust and immediately dismissed the car. However the salesman told me to at least drive it first and then make my decision afterwards. I got inside and it was immaculate and when I started it up and saw the mileage on the odometer I was in for a huge shock. The car had 240k miles on it. I couldn’t believe how smooth the engine was after so many miles. Everything worked like a swiss watch and that J30 V6 was still sewing machine smooth. All of the controls from the turn signal stalk to the climate controls and even the radio controls had a weighted, heavy feel that masked the cars age. I pulled out of the parking lot and drove down some country roads and starting getting on the car a little bit. The transmission was a bit sluggish but still shifted nicely and didn’t seem like it was having too much trouble. I could overlook the body damage and slight rust for what seemed like a great car. I paid $4200 for the car and was on my way.
I owned the ’01 Accord for eight months and came to appreciate how well built and designed the car was. How many 2001 Chevrolet Malibus do you see on the road still? Ford Taurus? This car felt like it was a level above those cars and honestly felt a lot more controlled and planed than the Camry. The double wishbone suspension was fantastic as the car tracked so straight on the highway compared to other cars in the class. No need for constant small corrections… the steering was fantastic (other than being a little vague on center). My issues with the car were limited to a clogged EGR port that $10 of throttle body cleaner and an afternoon with a toothbrush solved. 5 months into my ownership the car developed a nasty oil leak at the rear main (common on older J30 V6 cars) and instead of adding a heavier weight oil or just keeping it topped off, I fixed it. $800 later the car was back on the road and I planned on getting some of the body work fixed and driving it to 300k+ miles. I felt that confident in the car. However one early January morning the transmission started acting up and I knew it was the beginning of the end. The fluid had been changed twice in 10k miles and it wasn’t wise to invest $3000 into a new transmission. I quickly traded it for a 2008 Accord EX-L which was a very nice car itself but it didn’t have that solid Honda feeling the 2001 did.
I just traded the 2008 in for a brand new 2016 LX and while the new car is fantastic in just about every way it still doesn’t have the solidity the older car had and the materials inside and out are cheaper than the 2001. The Camry has really gone downhill since 2002 and while the Accord had a misstep of it’s own with the 8th Gen car it still feels like a more substantial, more expensive car than the Camry.
Here’s a picture of the Camry… for some reason it won’t let you upload more than one picture at a time.
I owned a 2000 Accord EX (4 cyl), purchased used in 2002 with 48k miles. The six+ years I owned the car, I never had a mechanical issue. One complaint: the paint job on these do not hold up well over 9 years. My 12 year old Prius has a fantastic paint finish that, when cleaned up, looks showroom new.
As I noted back when this story first appeared, the paint on my ’99 Accord coupe was absolute garbage. Peeling clearcoat, and it would scratch if you so much as gave it a dirty look. By the time I sold it in 2006, there were nicks, scratches and dings down both sides. For such a trouble-free and well-built car, Honda’s failure on paint in the late 90s is appalling. The ’95 Accord I had before it had no such issues. And while GM gets plenty of well-deserved crap for peeling paint, my dark blue ’91 Corsica still looked great when I traded it on the first Accord.
It’s interesting to revisit the article now a few years later. After decades of building blandmobiles, Toyota is trying to give its cars more personality, but I find the current styling theme with Darth Vader mask-inspired grilles overwrought. The nose of the current Accord isn’t very attractive either, although I like the Honda’s sleek profile. Instead, I chose a Mazda 6, which I think is far more attractive.
It should be mentioned that the Accord owner faced a giant bill when the timing belt broke or, more commonly, stripped some teeth due to oil leaking on the belt. Pistons slamming valves…
The Camry driver simply called a tow truck if the t-belt broke.
This is a very true fact I found out myself on a -10 degree winter day with my same engined Celica years ago. Tow comes and the driver bangs a rubber mallet on my gas tank; “It’s your fuel pump”, then proceeds to try and take it to their shop instead of Toyota. Yeah right dude, you can “hear” a busted fuel pump in a car that’s insanely rare in the configuration I own in extreme cold?!? That was a hearty laugh and a cold No. Mom showed up as this is happening and gave me the stare of death when I told the tow driver he was full of… because why pay more at Toyota? And yes as I suspected, the timing gear skipped a tooth. I laughed in her face afterwards also when I reiterated how he diagnosed a bad fuel pump. We don’t talk cars anymore.
We joke about our different countries being like an alternative universe – but this article has really brought it home to me.
I’ve said before about the crazy premium prices charged for Honda products in Australia way back when, but I just happen to have a 1996 issue of Wheels alongside me. Just the right age to have prices for these two. Turning to the price guide in the back, and leaving V6s and wagons out of it to make the comparison as fair as possible, the Camry lists for $26,310 to $33,220. The Accord? $36,850 to $49,100. Ten Thousand 1996-value Dollars More.
Okay, local assembly would have made the Camry cheaper, I can accept that, and import duties and suchlike would’ve hiked the Accord’s price – but surely not that much!
Oh for a universe where they competed on equal terms. Having driven this model Camry, it would be sayonara Toyota!
What caused the difference? Demand or taxes?
Back when there was a strong difference in mission and execution between these two models, even though they’re near-identical twins in appearance. If you prioritized comfort, refinement, and smooth quiet operation, you bought a Camry. If you wanted a bit of verve at the cost of ride comfort and a lot of road noise, you got an Accord. There were real differences in how these two went down the road.
They started really getting into each other’s personal space around 2013. The Honda began to get quieter, softer, and bigger. The Toyota had an SE trim that really did reign in the handling. The biggest differentiator was the availability of a manual in some Accord trims. Now, even that’s gone and they’re both automatic-only sedans with styling-compromised rooflines and pretty comparable levels of noise, comfort, refinement, material quality and ‘sportiness’.
The styling has never been farther apart between them, but their operation has never been closer.
A truly excellent and accurate reply.
Well, except for my use of reign instead of rein 🙂
It’s the core of my beef with the auto press and the Accord: they’ve been so similar for the past near-decade that auto writers have resorted to exaggeration and cherry-picking to manufacture a favorable distinction.
That’s OK; I knew what you meant.
🙂
Toyota has taken a more conservative route with cars that offer softer ride number steering quieter cabin while honda has always embraced driver engagement more. Thyve applies this to all their cars. I have an odyssey and an accord for this reason. The odyssey felt like driving a larger accord while the sienna felt like driving a minibus. Camry felt like a smaller grand marquis while accord felt like a budget bmw. So yea im team HONDA.
I had a 1997 Camry; it was bought new and kept for 7 years and 111,000 miles. It was the volume model, the LE with 4-cylinder and automatic. I know these were criticized for cost-cutting compared to the prior generation, but for the most part, I saw more positives than negatives — the new model had adjustable rear seat head restraints, the hand brake was offset toward the driver’s seat (rather than the passenger’s on the ’96), and the car was rated Good in the IIHS moderate overlap test (compared to Acceptable for the 1995-96 models). Also, ABS was made standard on most models, including the LE 4-cylinder.
I remember Automotive News panning it for removal of the chrome trim around the windshield. Now how many cars have such trim?
Mine was part of the alleged engine oil sludging group. Ironically with this car, I finally decided to forego the once-obligatory 3,000-mile oil and filter change intervals and increased it to 5,000 miles, which worked out to about every 4 months. (The manual specified normal service intervals of 7,500 miles or 6 months.) I never had sludging.
Despite “only” 138 horsepower, the car seemed sprightly enough, and I never had trouble merging onto expressways.
The only reason it was sold was to get side curtain and side torso airbags on a newer 2004 Camry; otherwise it would have been kept longer.
My 1999 Camry 4 cyl work car is still squeek and rattle free at 268,000 miles. The most trouble-free car I everI owned (including 2 Accords). Boring and reliable is a virtue. I have other toys for entertainment.
Why I purchased my third Toyota; a 2019 Camry.
“As far as I know, the trans issues were only on the V6 Accords, which I’m sure accounted for a smaller percentage of sales than the I4 cars.”
Actually….no. We had 2 1998 Accords. Mine was a metallic black EX V6 coupe, while my wife had a mid line 4 door sedan with the 4. Both had the 4 spd automatic. I had leased my wife’s Accord, and we decided to purchase it when the lease expired. Like all of my cars it had been maintained “by the book” (not a saying one can use today with a Honda-no book, only IP readouts buried in some display layer, some place). I had traded my V6 coupe for something else before we bought the Accord 4 door 4 banger at the lease end. I very seldom drove her Accord so I was not aware of what the transmission was doing, and my non car wife said not one word. I finally drove it, well past the Honda warranty period of 3years/36K miles (it had @ 48K miles by then) when I discovered how it was…or wasn’t shifting. I took it back to our Honda dealer’s Service Dept…….WTH???
As we were repeat (many times over) customers I found out about the transmission problem: it was a epidemic……and the “good will extended warranty”. After the Service Manager tested it he went to bat for us, along with the dealer General Manager, with Honda. Bottom line: a new Honda spec remanufactured (dealers were NOT allowed to do anything except pull them and replace them) transmission was installed AT NO CHARGE. That no charge was in excess of $6000.00 parts and labor to Honda.
Given the dealer and Honda response was like that, is it any wonder why most of my car purchases since then have been Hondas??! Yes….I’ve gone a$tray 4 times! 🙁 Strange…we went back to a Honda each time.
As an aside: my 2 favorite Honda cars, so far, was our first one: a base 1988 3 dr HB, small 4 with 4spd stick, in light metallic blue, and a very handsome medium green metallic with ivory cloth interior 1993 Accord sedan also with a 4 spd stick. Both cars were delights to drive, comfortable with great mpg and very reasonable maintenance costs….”by the book”!! 🙂
Currently my wife has her third CR-V, a ’20 EX; while I have my solid RED ’21 Civic EX. I must say that the 1.5L turbo combined with a set of hi-performnce A/S Continental radials make my Civic, despite the blah CVT, a reasonbly fun to drive “economy” car. DFO