By on August 10, 2017

2018 Toyota Camry and 2018 Honda Accord - Images: Toyota & HondaBy the time the all-new 2018 Honda Accord debuted at a July 14, 2017, launch event, the all-new 2018 Toyota Camry was already on sale.

There are still sedan buyers alive in this world, you see. You might just be among them. Toyota and Honda will sell some 700,000 Camrys and Accords in the United States in 2017, roughly four out of every 10 midsize cars.

So, presented with two new options from the preeminent manufacturers of midsize sedans, what choice do you make? A 2018 Toyota Camry right now, with all the glory of a J-VIN and a 301-horsepower V6? Or do you wait a few weeks for the 2018 Honda Accord, a sports sedan on the cheap with a 2.0T and a six-speed manual?

Accord and Camry. It’s like Frazier and Ali. Celtics and Lakers. Palmer and Nicklaus.

Year after year they duke it out on U.S. dealer forecourts, one claiming long-time overall sales victory; the other retail supremacy. It’s not a battle fought on the spec sheet alone, but there have been major on-paper advances with the 2018 models. The 2018 Camry now offers the most standard horsepower in the segment. The 2018 Accord adds two inches of legroom to an already spacious rear seat.

Regardless, both cars are certainly now more distinguishable than they were in past generations. Love them or hate them — or love one and hate the other — there’s no denying the new Camry and Accord do a much more effective job of standing out from the pack.

But which car stands the better chance of luring you away from a RAV4 or CR-V? Which new midsize car is going to cause you to stand up as a proud member of the sedan fraternity? 2018 Honda Accord, or 2018 Toyota Camry?

[Images: Toyota, Honda]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

105 Comments on “QOTD: Camry Now Or Accord Later?...”


  • avatar
    zip89123

    I’ll take a loaded 4-cyl Camry XLE with NAV. Oh wait, stupid Toyota won’t have NAV available on any 4-cyl or hybrid model.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      You’re just gonna have to let this go man…

      youtu.be/gLo-ylNPXyE

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The 4-banger costs as much as a currently discounted 2017 Malibu 2.0T Premiere for $24,XXX. The Malibu 2.0T eclipses the Accord V6 comparing Motor Trend acceleration tests, beats the Honda in braking, and gets almost 40 mpg.

      MT:
      “At the track, the 2017 Chevrolet Malibu with the 2.0-liter turbo hit 60 mph in just 5.7 seconds and finished the quarter mile in 14.3 seconds at 99.4 mph. That’s a full 0.5 second quicker to 60 mph and 0.4 quicker and 3.4 mph faster in the quarter mile than a comparable 2016 model. The 2017 model stopped from 60 mph in 117 feet…”

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        But the Malibu is one of the ugliest cars on the road, and if my day with a rental in Canada was any indication, one of the most low-rent interiors I’ve ever experienced. The Malibu is Chevy’s way of saying, “Buy an Equinox.”

        • 0 avatar

          And, the Malibu is not relevant to the question, which is Camry vs. Accord.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Don’t provoke him. He’ll find a way to weave that Chinese wonder-wagon Envision into the conversation.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          This. I test-drove one a couple of weeks ago (a mid-spec 2LT that should have been pretty nice). I was not impressed. The Cruze felt quite a bit nicer.

          • 0 avatar
            TMA1

            Kyree, I thought the same thing. Mine was just rental grade, but the cloth on the dash made it look like a Cruze when it first came out. A step down from the previous Malibu.

            Also, it still had winter tires on it in June, and there was no keeping that noise out of the cabin. We thought there was something wrong with the car.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          What kind of degenerate gets a Malibu when the Impala V6 is available for under $24K?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Malibu prices have “degenerated”…you can pick one up around here for $18,000 or so.

            (24 large for an Impala V6 is a great deal, though.)

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Norm, in addition to his 387-horsepower Trifecta Tune Encore, has also acquired a Chineesy Buick Envision and it now makes 545-horsepower st the crank/444-lbs feet of torque @1,200 rpm with a KPOP Autotune (getting 59.97 mpg).

      • 0 avatar
        Axethales

        First of all a Chevy Malibu is a straight up waste of money. They are crap, and have always been crap. They depreciate to the point they are worth more as scrap metal.

        Secondly, no one buying these cars cares how long it takes to get to 60 when all of them are over 5 seconds. It’s like saying people are betting how fast the elderly can walk to the grocery store door from their handicap spot.

    • 0 avatar
      aeroplane

      If the nav is anything like that of my 2017 Sienna, you’re better off just using your phone, anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      xtoyota

      Yah and it’s ugly

    • 0 avatar
      dmoan

      Go to Amazon get a phone mount, there I solved your NAV problem and saved you 3k…

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    Camry all the way. Naturally aspirated, real automatics, V6 power, double wishbone suspension, gorgeous interiors – nuff said.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Agree!! If you don’t care to drive MT – Camry is the choice. Get it now while they come from Japan

    • 0 avatar
      cammark

      both are Macpherson strut now. Camry has been so for several generations. Accord I think last had double-wishbone for the ’12 model year.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I think he’s talking about the Camry’s rear suspension which apparently has switched to a double wishbone design out back (to my chagrin, I think their classic rear multi-link is unbeatable in the mainstream in terms of comfort and durability).

        • 0 avatar
          cammark

          If that’s the case it looks like Toyota is calling it an “independent dual link” which suggests to me a more typical trailing arm and lateral link. I haven’t had any luck finding an image to verify that. Accord has had a rear multi (5) link since ’98.

          I’m certainly not suggesting one is superior to the other, that would require some hands-on, real world interaction. But I feel it’s important to have accurate information for comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Marketing folks have a way of twisting the engineering-truth into cool and impressive-sounding (but misleading) things I suppose.

    • 0 avatar
      xtoyota

      pmirp1:
      Yah…but it’s still ugly

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Neither. Mazda6 with MT will do just fine. May be wait for Mazda spark-less tech with improved fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, some 2016 Mazda3 will do.

    And one more thing. This new Accord looks like it had been in frontal collision already

  • avatar
    redapple

    I agree. The Toyota is the Best.
    (and I owned and loved my 3 Hondas)

  • avatar
    phila_DLJ

    The only Camry I’m interested is a 1992-or-older wagon.

    As for the new Accord, it’s SIXTEEN INCHES LONGER than my Civic—way too much car for my modest needs.

  • avatar
    SearMizok

    I’d wait for the Honda.

    I just started a 3 year lease on a Nissan Rogue, so, I have time.

    Will probably take a hard look at the Honda Accord when my lease is up!!

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      As much as I bee-yatched, pi$$ed, moaned, complained, and other, I’m through (mostly) the seven stages of grief over the J35. (Doesn’t mean I agree with what Honda is doing!)

      The Camry doesn’t have class-upper-trim basics like memory seats, at any price! (And it looks like I’d have to put up with the pano roof if I went with an XLE-V6, which I’m not excited about!)

      So when I go shopping a year or two from now, the Accord Touring 2.0T will be my first choice, with the Hybrid Touring a fall-back.

      If neither is a good choice, IMHO, I’ll see what the Avalon has in store. (That one has toys, but may be a bit big.)

      Or I’ll drive the wheels off my 2013.

  • avatar
    kam327

    Hmmmm, which one is least ugly??? Nah, it’s a tie, I’ll keep my beautiful Mazda6.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Camry if I had to pick one – TORQUE above all else.

    Interestingly though the Camry XSE V6 in blue with black roof and spoiler costs what a decently trimmed Avalon does.

    • 0 avatar

      Thank you for reading the question and responding appropriately. Others are having a hard time.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Well I do also have experience with the superb 3.6 V6. The 5 speed auto in my Highlander annoys me with its tendency to hunt for gears and second guess itself.

        I definitely think an even number of gears (8 in the Camry’s case) would be an improvement.

        Plus you know that if it was 1967 and you asked me to pick between a slow reving torquey big block family sedan and a high reving small block family sedan, I’d pick the big block. Every. Single. Time.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      “torque above all else”

      “That’s why I prefer the car that makes peak torque at 5500 RPM instead of 1500”

      This is supposed to pass for the “best and brightest”?

      There are certainly legitimate reasons to prefer the V6 but torque is literally what these turbo fours do best. They drive almost like turbo diesels.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I have found that in hilly areas (my commute takes me from 6,700 ft in elevation to 5,500 ft in elevation with lots of dips and rises in between) if the turbo is constantly “on the boil” fuel economy sucks.

        A V6 simply does it more effortlessly – my cruising RPM is basically between 2,000 and 5,000 rpm because there are sections were the transmission has to kick clear down to 3rd.

        If I still lived in NW Ohio (where I was born and raised) and everything was pancake flat I likely wouldn’t give a $hit if it was V6 or turbo 4 for my 60 min round trip commute.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      My BIL just got $6k off an Avalon Touring with very little persuasion. Pleasantly surprised and he loves the car. Of course it was a huge upgrade from his 2001 Camry LE…

    • 0 avatar

      “TORQUE above all else.”

      Really? In a Toyota? Every Camry I’ve driven previously can’t handle the power. Yes, I know this is a different/better platform but, boy, Toyotas never feel good to drive.

  • avatar
    Nick 2012

    I spent some time in a 2018 Camry at NCM and it is one hell of a car. Didn’t drive it, but Toyota got its groove back.

    I’d have to drive them both as on paper, my choice is a coin flip between an XSE V6 Camry or a 2.0T 6MT Accord.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    I’ve only bought Hondas, so I would lean that way but I am annoyed enough at Acura that a good test drive in a Camry could sway me away.

    • 0 avatar
      bking12762

      S2K Chris, Why are you annoyed with Acura?

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        Lousy fit and finish on my TSX, niggling issues (bluetooth mic, VTC actuator), TERRIBLE brakes, and current models that have powertrains that were obsolete years ago. The J-series might be a nice engine, but why should I buy a new Acura today with it that makes basically the same power I could get in the same engine a decade ago?

    • 0 avatar
      fvfvsix

      @S2K Chris

      Our TSX got replaced with an 18 TLX a couple of months ago. Fit and finish is actually really good, and I’d disagree with you on the J-series engine. I think I like it better than Toyota’s 3.5L. Brakes suck, but you already knew that. Compared to any other Honda we’ve owned, it is actually perfectly quiet and rattle free. It isn’t the perfect car by any stretch, but well worth the $38K we paid for it (before TTL). Don’t write them off just yet.

  • avatar
    cdotson

    I’m not a sedan buyer or intender. If I were, the Accord would be near the top of my list of considerations. The Camry would not likely appear anywhere on that list. Toyotas are just too boring and numb. I see far too great a correlation between rolling roadblocks that can’t drive and Toyota sedan (and small CUV) ownership.

    I think the Camry looks boring with a try-hard front fascia. I actually think the Accord looks pretty good because it’s a touch more restrained than the Civic. Maybe could use an additional touch of restraint, but dark colors on the Civic reign it in a bit and so far I’ve only seen pictures of a white Accord.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      If you think there’s a great difference in tactility and driving enjoyment between an Accord and Camry, then you haven’t been paying attention for about 10 years now.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I have driven both outgoing models, and yes, there’s a DEFINITE difference in tactility and driving enjoyment between them. Advantage Accord, for sure. But the old Camry isn’t bad in this regard.

        I did check out a new Camry the other day on the lot…it feels cheap. Not encouraged.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Yeah, so have I, and DEFINITE is a definite overstatement. Between comments like this and the hyperbole in the typical media outlets, I thought the Accord would blow me away.

          Until I sat in it and drove it. Sweet engine and a performance envelope that exceeds what anyone buys a FWD sedan for, but dull with a cheap-feeling interior.

          Which is exactly how I’d describe the Camry.

          Why the disparity exists in the automotive press I don’t know, but for it to continue after C&D’s talk of a “toned chassis” and rich interiors in their first tests of the new Camry, some serious employment of the infamous Wobble will be required.

          I’ve got faith in them, though.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Part of it could be the model. The Accord I drove was a Sport model, with a manual; the Camry was a base with an automatic.

            The difference wasn’t breathtaking, but it was absolutely there.

            Will say, though…the Camry was a long way from bad.

            Still…I’ll rep for the Optima SX all day long. Drove one and really, really liked it.

          • 0 avatar
            hubcap

            “Sweet engine and a performance envelope that exceeds what anyone buys a FWD sedan for, but dull with a cheap-feeling interior.”

            I’m not sure but it seems think you’re saying that the car drove well and has a very good engine.

            How “tactility” is defined might be a sticking point. I took FM to mean how it feels to drive and I think you associated it with interior materials.

            The Mazda6 is a nice driving car and the updates to NVH in the ’17 would put it on my list if shopping in this segment.

            In fact, it would most likely be at the top especially if the suits in Hiroshima saw fit to add a more powerful engine.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I think a manual transmission has a sort of halo effect on the entire driving experience. The trims I compared are were equivalent: the V6 Touring and V6 XSE automatics and, slight steering feel advantage aside, the Accord felt more like a Camry than the Camry did.

            I may also have been influenced somewhat by the off-lease G37, 328xi, and IS250 I was also looking at in the same general price range. The differences between FWD mainstreamers became much smaller after that.

            How was the Optima’s powertrain? It seems to be all over the board in the reviews. Fusion still has my heart in this class. Very stereotypically “Germanic” ride/handling balance with good steering and road noise control. Put the Toyota 2.5 and 3.5 in there and that would be a hell of a car.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            hubcap,
            No, I meant “tactility” in the driving sense. Both cars had excellent powertrains and can be flung down a mountain road at speeds upsetting to passengers, but they’re both kind of big, kind of heavy, kind of isolated. The current 3-series that has been lambasted for its loss of driving feel was notably more enjoyable to drive even in lease queen trim. I just didn’t see the difference between the Toyota and Honda that is so emphasized in the magazines. Same with the interior quality; they are essentially equivalent, but this rarely mentioned about the Accord.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Liked the Optima SX a LOT, 30-mile…nice power delivery from turbo. Great styling. Great interior.

            It’s heavily underrated, far as I’m concerned. Try one out.

            Only concern might be buying a Kia…but that’s not really that much of a drawback these days.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      If people think that the Accord and Camry have cheap-ish interiors, you’d be amazed at how low the bar can be by way of the Chevrolet Malibu.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Toyota has taken the opposite tack with the new Camry. Its’ interior *looks* expensive, but it’s chock full of craptastic materials. Switchgear and doesn’t feel all that great. Doors don’t sound very solid.

        The old model was WAY better in this regard.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    If a manual is a non-negotiable item, then the decision is already made for that buyer.

    If we’re talking automatics then it would certainly be Camry V6 over the 2.0T Accord and I’d be leaning toward Camry 2.5 SE over Accord 1.5T but a test drive could sway me the other way on that one. I prefer the power delivery of natural aspiration and Toyota’s road noise control, and the interior finally looks like a potential class-leader.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    Turbo 4 + 6MT, please.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Actually, I’d want the hybrid, it’s more suited to the kind of slow stop and go driving I do. The only problem is that one with a sunroof and navigation is $36,000, which would get me a similarly equipped Fusion with the plug in hybrid drivetrain, and I’d much rather have that.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Checked a new Camry out on the local Toyota lot the other day. Haven’t driven it but I’m not down with what I’ve seen.

    *Styling isn’t impressive. It seems like they’re trying to dress up a boring basic shape with a ton of silly faux-boy racer touches, like the black vents on the back bumper below the taillights. WTF?
    *Love the dashboard styling, but there’s a TON of craptastic plastic in there.
    *Not impressed by general “feel” of the car – hollow-sounding front doors, ala Corolla, and there’s a clunk in the back bumper when you shut the rear doors. And this is on a Japanese-made model.

    Honestly, I liked the outgoing model better – whatever its’ faults are, it doesn’t feel cheap. This new one does.

    I’d be interested to see how it drives, but unless it really blows me away, it’d be a no sale.

  • avatar

    I might be dreaming of the 300HP V6 in the Camry, but those thoughts will go away while I row my own gears in my Manual transmission Accord.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Camry, if forced to choose between them… and without having tried either one.

    If the field is wider: Model 3.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Camry V6 and it isn’t even close.

    I don’t think the Accord even breaks into my top 5 for this class…

  • avatar
    seth1065

    I would lean towards Accord because of past ones I have owned ( 4) all were ex 4 cyl and were very good cars no issues, the MT is no use to me in metro NY , not sure if the new Accord has a CVT or not that may give me cause to look harder at the Camry.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      CVT on the 1.5, 10-speed slushbox on the 2.0.

      The stick is only available on the two Sport trims. The 1.5 is like the current Sport, an LX with big tires. The Sport 2.0 will include EX-grade stuff like a sunroof. The top Touring trims are CVT/auto-only. If you want a stick with leather (or even with normal-sized wheels), forget it!

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    A basic Toyota Camry LE at $22K or SE at $23
    Honda has moved too far away from its roots.
    Can’t resist the Toyota juggernaut, they make technically incredible products marred by cheap interiors. The 18 Camry seems to improve on the interior quality somewhat.

  • avatar
    Clueless Economist

    I’ll take a five year old Ford Fusion over either of these two ghastly designed things.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    2.0T + 6MT= Accord all day.

  • avatar
    Tennessee_Speed

    After reading some of the 1st drive reviews of the new Camry I’d say the Accord has an uphill climb in the sales race. I say that from the perspective of someone who likes to drive a good handling auto. With the lower center of gravity and vastly improved suspension of the ’18 Camry, the Accord will really have to step up their game to compete.
    Now if you don’t mind a CVT over the 8 speed auto of the Camry, the Accord might fit your needs.
    Both Toyota & Honda realized any sedans they will be building will have to be dramatically improved over their earlier models just to be able to compete with the SUV onslaught.
    I’m surprised that many of those who posted here have not read about the very impressive first drives of the new Camry.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’ve read the impressive first drives. I’m sure the Camry drives well. But I don’t like the styling much, and there’s a general sense of cheapness in the ones I saw on the lot that turned me off.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        So, you don’t like styling of Camry (ok, it is traditional), but you like Accord? I simply want to puke just by looking at this accord. There is no one angle from which I like it. The wheels are ugly. I just saw a Malibu today. It could as well be a hatchback. Accord seem the same.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I like the Accord’s styling better – it just seems more cohesive, with fewer fake boy-racer elements. Of course, that’s subjective.

          But in this class, the Fusion and Optima are by far the best looking vehicles. Mazda 6 isn’t far behind.

          And the Camry feels cheap to me.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            To me, ’18 Camry resembles ’17 Accord. ’18 Accord resembles Malibu

            YOu probably wish accord was this car http://www.hondacarmodels.com/2018-honda-accord-redesign/

            But instead you got this.. ok, go to google images and search for “2017 chevy malibu side vs 2018 honda accord side”. And you will see that these cars like twin brothers

    • 0 avatar

      Interesting, Tennessee, because from my perspective anyone who cares about driving would pick the Accord. Not only has Honda always been the better of the two at dialing in a great ride/handling balance, but the new Accord comes in a 2.0T/6-speed manual combination that most “drivers” would massively prefer.

  • avatar
    Nedmundo

    Accord all the way, and 2.0T with 6MT please. Honda seems to be recapturing its driver’s car mojo, and with the excellence of the new Civics I’m expecting great things from the Accord. It’s bigger than I’d like, so I’m more likely to replace my 2010 TSX with a Civic Si (or even Type-R), but I’ll consider the Accord anyway.

  • avatar
    bking12762

    My vote goes to the Accord. Historically, they are known to hold their value and aren’t the darlings of the rental companies as the Camrys are. I also think the Accord design looks more cohesive than the Camry.

  • avatar
    volvo

    Of the two choices mine would be Camry. NA engine burning 87 octane and old school automatic are my reasons why.

    I wouldn’t buy one because for california urban and even suburban use they are just too large.

    The car I might actually purchase would be a Toyota or Honda that was civic sized and appointed like their larger brethren (leather, same power to weight and full suite of safety features). I know that is available if one is willing to pay the premium price and lessened reliability that goes with a German logo which I am not.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’d need a test drive of both to make this decision. Has the Camry’s horribly cheap interior improved at all? Has the Accord’s problem with road noise gotten any better? Which is more important on the road: the 2.0T’s low-end shove or the sonic improvement from having two extra cylinders?

    My bias is Accord for the 2.0T/6M combination and Honda’s historically more refined interiors, but it’s an uninformed bias.

  • avatar
    Moparmann

    IF I were a sedan type person, I would have to look hard at the Accord, even though I’ve never experienced a 4 cylinder turbo. Since my preference leans toward manuals w/ four cylinders, AND after looking at the baleen whale front end of the Toyota, I would “strain” to get away from it! :-)

  • avatar
    Scott_314

    The latest word on the street, among pure appliance-oriented consumers that don’t give a crap about anything but long term reliability and cost of ownership… is that Honda is slipping slightly.

    Could there be some law of the universe that boring vehicles must be more reliable than more exciting ones?

  • avatar
    doug-g

    I’d go Camry everyday of the week over the Accord. I would, in fact, choose ANY Toyota over the comparable Honda product. It’s sad, but a Honda dealership in Western Colorado is one reason. The other is that the actions of said dealership put me in contact with Honda proper. I don’t think I have ever dealt with more arrogant jackasses. They are, BTW, doing you a favor by building and selling cars – just so you know. Act accordingly!

  • avatar
    Dan

    Six is worlds better than four in my book but for as much as the V6 Camry costs now I wouldn’t be looking in this class to begin with. The V6 package is $6,000. Who are they kidding?

    Within the realm of actual consideration I have mixed feelings.

    Honda option bundling kills me – any options at all include the sunroof with which I can no longer sit upright.

    I’ve driven neither base powertrain but strongly suspect that the Honda drives better. They nailed the CVT in the current Accord and turbo torque can only help. 8 speeds to dither between in what is at heart an economy car don’t give me much confidence.

    The pushbutton shifter in the Accord is the answer to a question asked by nobody, ever.

    I’ve had better luck with Toyota quality than Honda and an overworked miniature turbo motor wouldn’t give me much confidence even with Toyota written on the cover.

    I’d buy the Toyota.

  • avatar
    Spartan

    The Camry V6 hands down. It’ll have the driving feel of a Lexus without the luxury tax. The Accord will have the driving feel of a Honda, for what that’s worth these days.

    The Accord 2.0T 6MT will be no driver’s car. We really need to stop pretending like it’s the second coming of “sporty” family sedans.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Own a Lexus and have driven several others, and have driven many rental Camrys over the last few years. The Camries do not have anything like “the driving feel of a Lexus,” mostly because they have more road noise, harder touch points, and less suspension compliance.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        The last time the Camry felt like a “Lexus” was the XV10 Camry (’92-’96).

        Each successive Camry saw cost-cutting (not that certain Lexus models haven’t either – to a lesser extent), but seems like Toyota has turned the tide with the new one.

  • avatar
    bd2

    If had to choose one, probably would go for the Accord, but man, neither are exactly aesthetically pleasing to the eye (in the segment, would be the 6 for me).

  • avatar
    JerseyRon

    Tend to lean Toyota over Honda.
    Based solely on exterior appearance, I prefer the Accord.

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    I can’t imagine ever dropping 35K on a fwd sedan, but I would never voluntarily buy an auto (a sub 1k beater maybe), so Honda for me.

  • avatar
    dror

    it’s a little problem when every time you rent a car you get a Camry, also, every yellow taxi is a Camry, it always looks cheap, same as an Altima.
    People talk about the V6 option but fail to notice it’s a 35K option! for that price you better get an Avalon!

  • avatar

    At least the Japanese still have presence among midsized sedans, which is more than I can say for hapless Chrysler and GM. Honda and Toyota also make superior SUVs as well. Is there anything they can’t do.

    GM – what a disgrace!!

  • avatar
    ddroadkill

    Sad to see the V6 go, but I would have wanted it to be 4 door MT which didn’t exist. I have nothing really negative to say about the Camry, I’ve just always been more of a Honda guy. Accord 2.0T MT for me please.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Easy decision. The Camry is rental class and the Accord is what people who know cars buy.

    That’s why more people here at TTAC drive Accords than any other vehicle.

    And it doesn’t hurt that the new Camry is bizarre and the new Accord is handsome.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Tagbert: What is is about the comments section on this site? Almost every article has at least one comment that is...
  • theonlydt: Easy one for me, as owned a 2009 Sentra SE-R. Buy: the Sentra! This generation had a platform/chassis that...
  • Corey Lewis: No internet yet, so no.
  • Tagbert: Yes, Elon would spread doubt on pouch cells because that is not what Tesla uses. In fact there are lots of...
  • Corey Lewis: What an amazing and powerful marketing thing AWD has become, eh?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber