 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 20062007 Camry is an Accord Killer
I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary probably is making do with regular gas, unlike the Avalon. The bigger news is how elegant the Camry looks -- it's a cross between the G35 and the TL. Could just as easily have been called a Lexus. A few photos are on the toyota.com website. The official roll-out is in March. Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. > I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the > all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry > somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. All of this assumes you are looking for tire scorching performance -- and perhaps indifferent gas mileage. If I buy a sedan, I can't imagine the need for anything more than Honda's I4. I alternately drive to work an 03 Civic LX 5 spd and a 01 Prelude 5 spd. The Civic does just fine on I 75 and gets 38-40 mpg. Heck, lets put a "hemi" in the Camry or Accord next. "All of this assumes you are looking for tire scorching performance -- and perhaps indifferent gas mileage. If I buy a sedan, I can't imagine the need for anything more than Honda's I4. I alternately drive to work an 03 Civic LX 5 spd and a 01 Prelude 5 spd. The Civic does just fine on I 75 and gets 38-40 mpg. Heck, lets put a "hemi" in the Camry or Accord next. " I gotta agree with TWW. All our Accords have been I4s and they've all been perfectly fine for the intended use. However, we do have a V6-powered minivan for family outings and weeks-long vacations. I wouldn't be surprised to see market segmentation between I4-FWD cars and V6-AWD/RWD cars in the not too distant future. With V6s exceeding 250HP, FWD becomes less and less "user friendly." > I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the > all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary > probably is making do with regular gas, unlike the Avalon. Actually, I am pretty sure the current Avalon uses regular gas too. > The bigger news is how elegant the Camry looks -- it's a cross between > the G35 and the TL. Could just as easily have been called a Lexus. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry > somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. But how well does it handle compared to Accord? That's the big difference there; you get either a soft ride (Camry) or tight handling (Accord). > >snip > > But how well does it handle compared to Accord? That's the big difference > there; you get either a soft ride (Camry) or tight handling (Accord). Well the most recent Accord isn't as responsive as past Accords and with a decent set of tires the Camry's performance envelope isn't all that much different. Besides, sport sedan buyers have sportier options than Accord these days. The Camry and Accord are both mainstream family sedans. But lets wait to see how Toyota packages (especially safety related options) and prices the new Camry. From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, minivan, and pickup truck. >> >snip >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But lets wait to see how Toyota packages (especially safety related > options) and prices the new Camry. > From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the > current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, > minivan, and pickup truck. Honda just gave the Accord a minor restyling for '06. Since the current Accord came out for 2003, expect the next version for 2008. >> From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the >> current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, >> minivan, and pickup truck. > > Honda just gave the Accord a minor restyling for '06. Since the current > Accord came out for 2003, expect the next version for 2008. yup. i like the new taillights. less asian looking. >> Honda just gave the Accord a minor restyling for '06. Since the >> current Accord came out for 2003, expect the next version for 2008. > > yup. i like the new taillights. less asian looking. IMO, the new tail alone makes the '06 look much better than the '03-'05. > yup. i like the new taillights. less asian looking. And unlike the 2005-2006 Accords, their taillights still have amber turn signals. ;-) >> yup. i like the new taillights. less asian looking. > > And unlike the 2005-2006 Accords, their taillights still have amber turn > signals. ;-) the JDM ones do? i really dont know the infatuation with solid red lenses. then again, i dont want this turning into a massive cross-thread with dan stern :) my 98 hatch has red/amber/clear (for backups lights!) > >> yup. i like the new taillights. less asian looking. > > > > And unlike the 2005-2006 Accords, their taillights still have amber turn > > signals. ;-) > the JDM ones do? i really dont know the infatuation with solid red > lenses. then again, i dont want this turning into a massive cross-thread > with dan stern :) What's JDM? Per the "introductory" photos of the 2007 Camry on the Toyota website, the taillights show amber turn signals. That's all I know about it --- from what I see. > From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the > current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, > minivan, and pickup truck. the civic looks much improved, the minivan is equalled only byt he sienna, and the "truck"...? well, 2 out of 3 aint bad! has a ridgeline run at baja yet? >> From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the >> current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > has a ridgeline run at baja yet? Yup, and was doing very well until about half way when the poorly chosen tires gave out. Two Ridgelines were very near stock, had minimal preparation, mostly to the safety regs of the race. Regardless of the nay sayers and nit pickers, the Ridgeline is a truck and a very good one in its class.  SignatureKent Finnell From the Music City USA "Regardless of the nay sayers and nit pickers, the Ridgeline is a truck and a very good one in its class." Come on Kent; the Ridgeline is the perfect truck for people who need a Civic. A load in the bed obstructs access to the spare, its V6 gets similar fuel economy to GM's new V8s and it isn't cheap. No wonder sales are barely meeting goal. Had Honda brought this thing to market 3 or 4 years ago it would have been a winner. Today, it's another Element. But regarding the next generation Accord - I expect some major platform changes including an AWD option (probably starting with the Accord's platform mate the Acura TL). Like the Camry, I expect the Accord to grow in size a little. I'd sure like to see Honda offer a head's up display. One of my cars has that and it works great. Honda's cloth seats could stand some major improvement, too. A fully reclining passenger seat with flip-up leg support (like the optional BMW seats) would be nice. > "Regardless of the nay sayers and nit pickers, the Ridgeline is a truck > and a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or 4 years ago it would have been a winner. Today, it's another > Element. Let's see now, the above is in your never humble opinon, as opposed the the Automotive Writers who gave it Truck of the Year in Detroit this year. I'll not even mention the Motor Trend Truck of the Year since it is slightly tainted with Motor Trend's tendency to go with the advertisers. No, it isn't cheap, but when its competition is trimmed out to the Ridgeline's level, it becomes a real value. If a Civic driver wants a truck, I'd suggest the Element ... cheaper, lighter, and very versitile. Where would you rather have a spare, in a locked compartment shielded from damage and theft, or hanging under the bumper subject to both? For what it's worth, I neither own nor desire a pickup or any other truck. > But regarding the next generation Accord - I expect some major platform > changes including an AWD option (probably starting with the Accord's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passenger seat with flip-up leg support (like the optional BMW seats) > would be nice. What's the price difference between Hondas and BMWs? Heads up displays? Seen the new Civic dash? Close enough without the expense and visability problems that some people have with HUDs. Of course you have perfect knowledge of the auto industry and I should be chanting, "I[m not worthy, I'm not worthy ..." SignatureKent Finnell From the Music City USA "Where would you rather have a spare, in a locked compartment shielded from damage and theft, or hanging under the bumper subject to both?" I'd like the spare where I could get to it when I needed it. Have a nice day, Kent. You're a total cook. You're one of those cooks that drives on underinflated tires, so you can spend you're day on the side road fixing a flat. > "Where would you rather have a spare, in a locked compartment shielded > from damage and theft, or hanging under the bumper subject to both?" > > I'd like the spare where I could get to it when I needed it. > > Have a nice day, Kent. > "Where would you rather have a spare, in a locked compartment shielded > from damage and theft, or hanging under the bumper subject to both?" > > I'd like the spare where I could get to it when I needed it. When was the last time you need the spare? Over the past 20 years I've needed one twice, once in a driving rain and the other on the side of a busy road. Both times they were in the trunk, secured under a covering board that was covered with stuff that people normally put in trunks. What, exactly, makes the Ridgeline any different? There are options. If in mortal fear of a flat, keep the spare inside the extended cab. There's also the possiblity of an accessory to keep the spare on the tailgate. It's done all the time on SUVs and vans. > Have a nice day, Kent. I generally do. It takes more than a know-it-all snob to get me down. SignatureKent Finnell From the Music City USA "What, exactly, makes the Ridgeline any different?" It's a truck with a pickup bed. Truck -> Jobsites -> More flats than a car. > "What, exactly, makes the Ridgeline any different?" > > It's a truck with a pickup bed. Truck -> Jobsites -> More flats than a > car. cmon. any "truck" thats going to be on a "jobsite" is going to be an F-series, or chevy/gmc. thats what the contractors buy, thats what they get fleet pricing on, thats what the aftermarket outfitters design custom boxes and beds for. might see a few ridgelines at the home depot. maybe someone dropped a box of drywall screws there? > I'd like the spare where I could get to it when I needed it. whens the last time youve had a flat on a car or truck? i think mine was a slow leak back in 2000. plug kit and can of fixaflat took care of that lil problem. > suggest the Element ... cheaper, lighter, and very versitile. Where would > you rather have a spare, in a locked compartment shielded from damage and > theft, or hanging under the bumper subject to both? id rather have a plug kit and a can of fixaflat in the glovebox, personally. ever notice that most of the peeps with super monster swampers on their lifted trucks still have the OEM spare hanging underneath? chances are, it wont even work due to the size difference. >Let's see now, the above is in your never humble opinon, as opposed the the >Automotive Writers who gave it Truck of the Year in Detroit this year. I'll [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >For what it's worth, I neither own nor desire a pickup or any other truck. I do kind of agree with dimwhathisname. It isn't a great truck because a truck is a vehicle which primary purpose is to haul cargo or work supplies. If that is your purpose there are lots better choices out there than Ridgeline. Racing at Baja is not a function of a truck, even though it is far more interesting to me personally. The problem is that about 60% (all percentages are SWAG) of all trucks sold are not really well suited to be trucks (see above definition) and of the ~40% that are, only about half are regularly used for that purpose. Most are used for carrying passengers and as commuter vehicles. Occasionally, they may carry a light load or pull a trailer. For these purposes Ridgeline is probably pretty good for what it is. Pickup trucks are well suited for farmers and many construction trades. They are lousy for transporting cargo which must be protected from the elements. A van would be a better choice for most other purposes. If the cargo is light weight, a minivan might be an ideal choice. But vans aren't macho so SUVs and pickups are the big sellers - or at least they were before gas hit $3. My "truck" is a '98 Odyssey. It is probably better suited for the needs of 70% of all pickup and SUV buyers than the vehicle they bought. > My "truck" is a '98 Odyssey. It is probably better suited for the > needs of 70% of all pickup and SUV buyers than the vehicle they > bought. my "truck" is a 98 civic hatch. ive hauled pavers, toilets, and 8'2x4s (with only bout a foot hangin off the back!) last time i needed a truck was to bring the bigscreen home. thats what girlfriends with tacomas are for :) >> My "truck" is a '98 Odyssey. It is probably better suited for the >> needs of 70% of all pickup and SUV buyers than the vehicle they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > last time i needed a truck was to bring the bigscreen home. thats what > girlfriends with tacomas are for :) Well, I guess my '93 Accord 4-door sedan could qualify as a truck, as I hauled 2x4's in it with the rear seat folded down. :-) > "Regardless of the nay sayers and nit pickers, the Ridgeline is a truck > and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Civic. A load in the bed obstructs access to the spare, its V6 gets > similar fuel economy to GM's new V8s and it isn't cheap. No wonder the only reason GMs v8 gets such "great" mileage, is its using another V8/6/4 technology. 25 year old kludge to building a more efficient engine. > sales are barely meeting goal. Had Honda brought this thing to market 3 > or 4 years ago it would have been a winner. Today, it's another > Element. the element was actually selling ok, until the cheaper scion xB came on the market. > But regarding the next generation Accord - I expect some major platform > changes including an AWD option (probably starting with the Accord's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passenger seat with flip-up leg support (like the optional BMW seats) > would be nice. >>> From what I've read the Accord in '07 won't be much different than the >>> current model. Seems like Honda's best engineers were working the Civic, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Regardless of the nay sayers and nit pickers, the Ridgeline is a truck and a > very good one in its class. ok, ok... itll just take some getting used to, like the original subaru brat. same concept, actually. I own both a new '06 Avalon and just sold an '05 Accord EX V6 - the new Camry IS much better looking than the Accord and it's the SAME V6, same HP (268 hp) as the Avalon. Remember, the HP ratings on all cars dropped (Avalon from 280 to 268) with the new testing standards last fall. The V6 will run quite well on regular, as that's all I've used in the Avalon - premium is required for "maximum performance". There's still a Civic in the garage for use behind the RV. It does appear the Honda engineers have their work cut out for the next generation. >I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the > all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry > somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. Remember, the HP ratings on all cars dropped (Avalon > from 280 to 268) with the new testing standards last fall. I didn't take that into account. In any case, with the extra torque the 3.5 will provide, the Camry will race away from an Accord from a stop, that's for sure. Camry will have a SIX speed automatic, as well. The Camry SE will have a tighter suspension, probably tight like the Accord but without the jiggling. > I own both a new '06 Avalon and just sold an '05 Accord EX V6 - the new > Camry IS much better looking than the Accord and it's the SAME V6, same HP [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > use behind the RV. It does appear the Honda engineers have their work cut > out for the next generation. wouldnt it also cannibalize sales from the lower end lexuses, as well? seems a fine line to me between an avalon (stretched camry) and a lexus. i glanced at the new lexuses at the LA auto show, and i miss the old IS300/IS300sportback. im weird though. Too many Toyota trolls. Camry is a grandpa car. Admit it. The new Avalon.. guess who is buying them?? It's a Buick but in a different skin. >> I own both a new '06 Avalon and just sold an '05 Accord EX V6 - the new >> Camry IS much better looking than the Accord and it's the SAME V6, same [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > i glanced at the new lexuses at the LA auto show, and i miss the old > IS300/IS300sportback. im weird though. Who cares about the Camry. I love my Hondas including my 04 EX V6 but I may have to break down and buy a Hemi Challenger when they come out. That will smoke either though probably will not be as reliable or hold it's value as well but oh to return to my youth. --- Steve >I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the > all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry > somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. > Who cares about the Camry. I love my Hondas including my 04 EX V6 but I may > have to break down and buy a Hemi Challenger when they come out. That will > smoke either though probably will not be as reliable or hold it's value as > well but oh to return to my youth. --- Steve or wait for the new camaro. its retro styled, but i think they need to make the front end look more true-to-form. Cool. I will check that out too. My 70 1/2 Z28 was one of my favorite cars though fit and finish could not said to be good but oh the sound of those solid lifters and the high lift cam [factory]. --- Steve >> Who cares about the Camry. I love my Hondas including my 04 EX V6 but I >> may have to break down and buy a Hemi Challenger when they come out. That [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or wait for the new camaro. its retro styled, but i think they need to > make the front end look more true-to-form. > Cool. I will check that out too. My 70 1/2 Z28 was one of my favorite cars > though fit and finish could not said to be good but oh the sound of those > solid lifters and the high lift cam [factory]. --- Steve Ahhh -- the original Orgasmatron! :-) Holy sh.t! That's one ugly a.s car! So that's where all the Pontiac designers went to work..... Holy sh.t! That's one ugly a.s car! So that's where all the Pontiac designers went to work..... jmattis@attglobal.net wrote in news:1136995972.916794.224990 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > I wanted to see how Toyota dropped the Avalon 3.5 liter V6 into the > all-new 2007 Camry. The horsepower is down a notch, but the Cary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Honda engineers must be frantic. I hate to say it, but the new Camry > somehow makes my '04 Accord look dowdy. In actuality, an old CRX, Civic or Del Sol could be cheaply modded to attain more horsepower, faster acceleration, better gas milage and better handling characteristics for tens of thousands less than a 2007 Camry. And if you're a sucker for sound, dynamat isn't that expensive. And the way the Camry "looks" is subject to each individual driver's opinion. IMO it's ugly. And I don't see your Camry taking on my Hayabusa any time soon in _any_ aspect. > And the > way the Camry "looks" is subject to each individual driver's opinion. IMO > it's ugly. And I don't see your Camry taking on my Hayabusa any time soon > in _any_ aspect. The front of the new Camry reminds me a of a Studebaker. > > And the > > way the Camry "looks" is subject to each individual driver's opinion. IMO > > it's ugly. And I don't see your Camry taking on my Hayabusa any time soon > > in _any_ aspect. > > The front of the new Camry reminds me a of a Studebaker. What model? Some Kia's had an early hawk look alike grille. JT 1931 Studebaker President State Coupe (Q4) 1955 Studebaker President State Coupe 1955 Studebaker President State Sedan - Almost done Daily Driver 1956 Studebaker Power Hawk - Long Time Fun Car - (Will be burial container) 1964 Studebaker Champ P/U T-6 Long Bed - Back Up Daily driver 1983 Honda Civic FE 1956 Leica M2 >> The front of the new Camry reminds me a of a Studebaker. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > JT Don't know - something from the 50's with the wraparound read windows. Leica made cars? :-) > 1931 Studebaker President State Coupe (Q4) > 1955 Studebaker President State Coupe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1983 Honda Civic FE > 1956 Leica M2 > >> The front of the new Camry reminds me a of a Studebaker. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Leica made cars? :-) Nope but they sure make fine cameras... JT >> Leica made cars? :-) > Nope but they sure make fine cameras... I read the M4 was pretty good... > >> Leica made cars? :-) > > > Nope but they sure make fine cameras... > > I read the M4 was pretty good... M4 was perhaps the pinnacle of the M series line prior to having electronic gadgetry added. M4 provided parallax correction for four focal length lenses from 35mm to 135mm, fast film loading and rewind. My M2 provides for three lenses and actually was introduced after the famed M3. I seldom use it these days due to digital photography but if I need to get serious about high quality, out it comes! JT > M4 was perhaps the pinnacle of the M series line prior to having > electronic gadgetry added. M4 provided parallax correction for four [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > famed M3. I seldom use it these days due to digital photography but if > I need to get serious about high quality, out it comes! Trying to stay on topic, my '04 Accord carries a backpack loaded with a 4x5, 2 lenses, tripod.... :-) That's when I get serious about high quality! Prior to that I was a Nikon man. Leica was out of my range.... I love the results of 4x5, and my Accord has run great since day 1. > > M4 was perhaps the pinnacle of the M series line prior to having > > electronic gadgetry added. M4 provided parallax correction for four [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Prior to that I was a Nikon man. Leica was out of my range.... I love the > results of 4x5, and my Accord has run great since day 1. My ol' '83 Civic hatchback is perfect for photo gear and shortly I expect to do a series of nighttime neon shots. I still use an old Huskie tripod for long exposures. BTW, a handy thing to carry along is one of those small three step ladders for a better vantage. Most of my snapshot stuff is done with either a Panasonic FZ-10 or my earlier Olympus D-460. The Olympus is the most forgiving but the Panasonic with the Leica zoom lens is more versatile. 12X is too much zoom though as I wish that it was more in the range of 5 or 6X. Honda is now entering its fourth month since I brought it back to life after a 12+ year snooze. Sure love the way it passes gas stations! JT > My ol' '83 Civic hatchback is perfect for photo gear and shortly I > expect to do a series of nighttime neon shots. I still use an old [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Honda is now entering its fourth month since I brought it back to life > after a 12+ year snooze. Sure love the way it passes gas stations! I had a blue '82 Civic sedan: my first Honda. (There was a wide choice of colors in '82..) So I "know" your car. I'm on my fourth Honda now. (Maybe I stayed with Honda because of the dealership and how well the service department takes care of "me" and my car, I don't know.) Digitally speaking, I use my pocket Nikon 3200 camera for e-mailing snapshots; otherwise it's film all the way. > > My ol' '83 Civic hatchback is perfect for photo gear and shortly I > > expect to do a series of nighttime neon shots. I still use an old [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I use my pocket Nikon 3200 camera for e-mailing snapshots; otherwise it's > film all the way. The choice in colors for Civic hatchbacks were either red or blue but I suspect the sedans had a wider choice. Mine is the faded (badly) red. It might get new paint depending on how it behaves in the months ahead. OTOH, Digital is the way for me these days. I do have a partially exposed roll in the Leica as I am "testing" a new to me lens (1.5 Summarit) that I bought on eBay last year. I really oughta get that done, eh? JT >> I had a blue '82 Civic sedan: my first Honda. (There was a wide choice of >> colors in '82..) So I "know" your car. I'm on my fourth Honda now. (Maybe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> I use my pocket Nikon 3200 camera for e-mailing snapshots; otherwise it's >> film all the way. > The choice in colors for Civic hatchbacks were either red or blue but I > suspect the sedans had a wider choice. Mine is the faded (badly) red. > It might get new paint depending on how it behaves in the months ahead. Red? My only choice (1982) was blue, brown, or silver. > OTOH, Digital is the way for me these days. I do have a partially > exposed roll in the Leica as I am "testing" a new to me lens (1.5 > Summarit) that I bought on eBay last year. I really oughta get that > done, eh? Um, yeah. :-) Email me direct when you get the results. Howard |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.