accord or camry

which one is better

preferably between a 95 - 00 camry or accord, which one is better. thanks

Accord All The Way

What do expect people on the ACCORD forum to say ??!!

They both do the job very well in their own way. The Camry has a quieter cabin, more isolated drive experience. Accords are a bit noisier but have a more connected driving feel. It's really a matter of what you want.

well i think i speak from pretty good experience. I bought a 92 camry 2.2 4cyl, about year ago with 165k on it, put about 10k and 40Hourspower on it. The hoursepower gain i'm assuming was the main cause of a rear main oil seal leak, and the tranny to slip after the car had been driven for anhour or more. Because of these problems i bought a 94 accord 2.2 4cyl with 100k. I've had the car about a month now, and its in such bad condition i wish i had just fixed the camry. Since buying i have found many problems. The car has trouble starting, haven't figured out cause, i already have oil on the spark plugs(i know, not too big of a prob), the power windows are messed up as well as the power locks and trunk lock. The amount the gas pedal is shaking is really starting to worry me since i went for a drive in the camry the other day it felt like i wasn't even touching the pedal. And the main problem is that the tranny shifts rough and slips during regular driving(AT 100K!!!). Now ofcourse the odometer could have been rolled back and this car could have been dogged out, but i dogged the crap out of the camry, raced it every chance i got, and it now has 175K and it still has less probs than the accord. The camry is deffinitely a more luxurious car. If your looking at a single cam engine that your not going to race, get the camry, if youre looking for a dual cam racer, well the accord is your only choice.

Because of these problems i bought a 94 accord 2.2 4cyl with 100k. And the main problem is that the tranny shifts rough and slips during regular driving(AT 100K!!!). If your looking at a single cam engine that your not going to race, get the camry, if youre looking for a dual cam racer, well the accord is your only choice.

I have a 94 EX...the AT tranny's are junk...i'm on my third with out unnecessary abuse (e.g. N drops or stupid S like that) and it is not a twin cam motor they are all 2.2L SOHC motors. Even with the problems i'd rather have it over a camry.

If I recall correctly, you've posted this "I'm on my third" comment a few times before. But you also noted once that the 2nd and 3rd were USED transmissions. How do you know they were not on their last legs when you got them?

I've owned 3 Accords, all of them bought at or over 100,000 miles. I put 100,000 more on each of the first 2, and I'm at 20,000 more on the one I have now.

Apart from one that shifted roughly into 4th, I've never had any serious transmission problems (that I'm aware of).

well i think i speak from pretty good experience. I bought a 92 camry 2.2 4cyl, about year ago with 165k on it, put about 10k and 40Hourspower on it. The hoursepower gain i'm assuming was the main cause of a rear main oil seal leak, and the tranny to slip after the car had been driven for anhour or more. Because of these problems i bought a 94 accord 2.2 4cyl with 100k. I've had the car about a month now, and its in such bad condition i wish i had just fixed the camry. Since buying i have found many problems. The car has trouble starting, haven't figured out cause, i already have oil on the spark plugs(i know, not too big of a prob), the power windows are messed up as well as the power locks and trunk lock. The amount the gas pedal is shaking is really starting to worry me since i went for a drive in the camry the other day it felt like i wasn't even touching the pedal. And the main problem is that the tranny shifts rough and slips during regular driving(AT 100K!!!). Now ofcourse the odometer could have been rolled back and this car could have been dogged out, but i dogged the crap out of the camry, raced it every chance i got, and it now has 175K and it still has less probs than the accord. The camry is deffinitely a more luxurious car. If your looking at a single cam engine that your not going to race, get the camry, if youre looking for a dual cam racer, well the accord is your only choice.



hmm well i think you didnt had a good accord. im talking about a brand new camry and an accord to be compared not used
you never know if both the cars your comparing is in the same condition. seems like you bought a beat up accord and your comparing it to your camry that you put 10 k on it. correct me if im wrong but you had the camry and had a chance to work on it but your accord you bought it and didnt know it had many problems. i bought a 2nd hand 97 accord ex 64k miles for 4 gran power window on the driver side is not working but other than that it drives pretty good ive spent about 2 g's on it and im not regreting it. what im trying to say is you cant get a clean good answer if you compare a camry and your accord that has a lot of problems that just not fair what im looking is a brand new accord and a brand new camry or if your comparing be sure to make it the same so youll see what kind of car is better

You can get a lemon or a long lasting car with both. all i was saying was in my experience i've had more problems with a 2.2 '94 accord with 100k in a month than i i've had from a 2.2 '92 camry with 165k in a year. so its debatable which one has the best lasting power but a fact is that the camry is just easier to work on. things are just placed better and the engine bay is larger to allow for more room, and thats pretty much no matter what year. As far as brand new ones go, i can't speak from experience, but on the camry boards i never heard people complaining about little annoying stuff breaking that you hear about with new cars. The camry is obviously bigger if thats what you're looking for but theres no coupe option. In the new cars, i'd get the accord, cause the camry is just a boat. If the cars are the same price, with the new ones get an accord, but with the older ones camry is just a nicer car

well its not debatable you dont know where that 2.2 accord came from . from what i heard in your sayings is that your accord had a stupid owner before that drives like a mad man or a guy that doesnt take car of it. in the other hand your camry is still in good shape thats the evidence of a good owner before. what im trying to say is its hard to compare a used cars right you dont know the history of them so i cant really tell neither do you. your right by the looks of the new camrys its no gonna be a choice for young wanna be racers (lol)

The camry is obviously bigger if thats what you're looking for but theres no coupe option.
I know this is the Accord forum, but isn't the Solara essentially a Camry coupe?

The underpinnings are the same but it's a "fancier" car with different body panels.

yeah the solara is a v6 camry coupe. the camry used to have a coupe but no more. so the camry is pretty much equal to the sedan accord, and the solara is the v6 accord coupe. I really like both v6 coupes. They can both be modded pretty well right now, though the accord will probably have alot bigger aftermarket in a few years.

coupe=life

If I recall correctly, you've posted this "I'm on my third" comment a few times before. But you also noted once that the 2nd and 3rd were USED transmissions. How do you know they were not on their last legs when you got them?

I've owned 3 Accords, all of them bought at or over 100,000 miles. I put 100,000 more on each of the first 2, and I'm at 20,000 more on the one I have now.

Apart from one that shifted roughly into 4th, I've never had any serious transmission problems (that I'm aware of).


It is true that the two transmissions i have bought were used and i have only broken 2 total i am on my third. I have nothing to say that the second one wasn't on it's "last leg" when i got it except that it came out a car with less than 100K miles on it. I'm sure there are people out there that have not had transmission problems as well as many people who have...it is my understanding that the 94 accords had particularly bad transmissions and the problem was somewhat fixed in 95 so maybe it's just me.

it came out a car with less than 100K miles on it.
Do you know how the car had been driven and maintained?

Do you know how the car had been driven and maintained?

Now how exactly do you expect me to know that? It came from a junk yard. I have however known the owners of the junk yard for years and it is a reputable place. But, as we all know things from the junk yard are "as is", within reason. The part did have a warrenty on it but I drove with the 2nd transmission for about 25K so that was obviously void. Just for the record I do properly maintain my vehicle so I am not just buying these transmissions and abusing them until they die and them whining about on this forum.

I noted your comment earlier that you don't brutalize the transmissions yourself.

But my point was that you're giving the impression that Honda built 2 bad transmissions, but without the data to back it up. Actually, have you owned the car from new? If not, then BOTH your failed transmissions could have resulted from someone else's bad driving/maintenance.

Counter to that was my experience - 3 Accords, all used (and with only limited knowledge of the history of one of them) and no transmission failures in 100's of thousands of miles. Some years ago, I owned 2 GM full-size sedans, and the transmissions on both went out well before 100,000 miles!