Reliability... Honda vs. Toyota

I'd like to hear your opinion on which manufacturer's cars are more reliable, and why?
I pick Toyota because its been around longer and should have more expirience in making cars.

I picked Honda because no one else did. :p

they're both one in the same i think. i've seen plenty of 300,000 plus hondas and toyotas running like new. it's remarkable to say the least. but on the other hand, on a rare occasion i've seen a few rather shitty ones too. i think toyota has won more of those JD power and associates awards and in consumer reports. i've never owned a toyota before but can vouch for honda's reputation for reliability. i think it's a pretty safe bet that if you have either car, you can depend on the car to start everytime and run and run and run with very few trips to the repair shop.

but even a honda or toyota can be a shitbox if you don't take care of it.

i'm split. really dont' know who to choose. so i'll vote based on whichever of the two i saw last broke down on the side of the highway, which happened to be a previa. so honda it is. :p

but even a honda or toyota can be a shitbox if you don't take care of it.

Which is exactly why I didn't vote. You can't really say which is better, most car problems can be related to the driver rather than the car.

Which is exactly why I didn't vote. You can't really say which is better, most car problems can be related to the driver rather than the car.

well i don't know that that's reason enough to not vote for one. not sayin you have to vote. and while i agree that a car (any car) is only as reliable as its owner wants it to be, i will say, from experience, that certain cars exhibit a more consistent record of reliability. that's all.

I've been pretty happy with my Accord.

I voted Toyota because they've won more reliability and safety awards, they have stronger engines (for boosting), and they are the pioneers in hybrid technology. Toyota = engineering wizards...

Look, everyone-to put this poll in perspective-the reason Sidrone started it was to prove that one model in the Toyota lineup (The MR2) is more reliable than one model in the Honda lineup (The RSX). The premise is absolutely ridiculous regardless of the cars being compared. Model reliablity may fluctuate due to engineering advances/changes in a given year, driver habits need to be factored in (as was mentioned) etc, etc. In either case, making a pointless blanket statement about one manufacturer's supposed reliability proves very little.

Who said anything about MR2 vs. RSX?

I agree that its more difficult to compare one car company to another than it is a car by car comparison with a goal in mind (performance.) So I simply made my judgement based on accolade. Understand?

I voted Toyota because they've won more reliability and safety awards, they have stronger engines (for boosting), and they are the pioneers in hybrid technology. Toyota = engineering wizards...


All Toyota do that Honda can't is Trucks and mighty brilliant ones at that, or capable offroaders for that matter.

Honda didn't pioneer Hybrid technology, but they are almost up to Toyotas level of expertise in the field.

Honda have already surpassed Toyota in the field of Diesel technology, for passenger cars.

Toyota can still not match the Civic and Jazz for space with the Corolla and Yaris respectively.


But this has nothing to do with reliability, in which both cmpanies are more or less the same, until about 200,000km's- Hondas start loosening up at this point.

But really, neither me, or most people I know take a new car that far before they flog it off three years later.

I voted Toyota because they've won more reliability and safety awards, they have stronger engines (for boosting), and they are the pioneers in hybrid technology. Toyota = engineering wizards...
hondas dont use boost, they use REVS, honda engines love to revs, they started out making motorcycles, and what do those bikes do? they also love revs, try making a corolla engine rev to 8000+ the same way the civic engines do in japan every single day, and for boosting i won't choose honda or toyota i'll choose NISSAN

try making a corolla engine rev to 8000+ the same way the civic engines do in japan every single day


Throw a set of cams and some 45doce webbers onto a 4age and it will run to 8,000 with out any trouble.


As far as reliablity goes, if you were to look at the service history and life of every singel Honda and Toyota built, since the early 60s I think you would find that are both pretty much even.


The two companys do however thier own unique design and enginering philosophys, and that does mean they make cars with some quite distinctive differnces. But that's just how each gets its own customers and finds its own niche in the market.

Throw a set of cams and some 45doce webbers onto a 4age and it will run to 8,000 with out any trouble.


As far as reliablity goes, if you were to look at the service history and life of every singel Honda and Toyota built, since the early 60s I think you would find that are both pretty much even.


The two companys do however thier own unique design and enginering philosophys, and that does mean they make cars with some quite distinctive differnces. But that's just how each gets its own customers and finds its own niche in the market.

nah, i dont wuna do anything to the engine, for $500 u can buy a decent b16 engine, makes from like 150-160hp and redlines at 8900 stock.. well just my 2 cents, i like sound of the high revvs

Look, everyone-to put this poll in perspective-the reason Sidrone started it was to prove that one model in the Toyota lineup (The MR2) is more reliable than one model in the Honda lineup (The RSX). The premise is absolutely ridiculous regardless of the cars being compared. Model reliablity may fluctuate due to engineering advances/changes in a given year, driver habits need to be factored in (as was mentioned) etc, etc. In either case, making a pointless blanket statement about one manufacturer's supposed reliability proves very little.

no, this thread i actually started to compare the two companies...

All Toyota do that Honda can't is Trucks and mighty brilliant ones at that, or capable offroaders for that matter.

Honda didn't pioneer Hybrid technology, but they are almost up to Toyotas level of expertise in the field.

Honda have already surpassed Toyota in the field of Diesel technology, for passenger cars.

Toyota can still not match the Civic and Jazz for space with the Corolla and Yaris respectively.


But this has nothing to do with reliability, in which both cmpanies are more or less the same, until about 200,000km's- Hondas start loosening up at this point.

But really, neither me, or most people I know take a new car that far before they flog it off three years later.

We're talking about cars, not sport bikes. And Honda isnt anywhere near the level Toyota is with Hybrids. Have you seen the Volta or the upcoming Lexus linup? They're all 300HP+ with an electronic engine for the front wheels and a V6 for the wheels, and each car gets over 50MPG. Some get 80, EIGHTY.

Do you KNOW how amazing that is? I agree "reliability" between companies is almost insignificant. And i'd rather have a Scion tC over a Civic ANY DAY.

Its funny how you neglected to menion Honda's strong points over Toyota, for example, the fact that Toyota has no performance car in its linup while Honda has the NSX and the S2000.

i see what you mean now... both of these companies have advantages and disadvantages over each other and are hard to compare...
thank you for your opinions everyone