Drive Accord Honda Forums banner

Camry vs Accord: Engine/driveline comparison.

10K views 74 replies 32 participants last post by  pimpin-tl 
#1 ·
My brother rented a 15 Camry, 29K miles for the family gathering. I drove it mainly to see what the 4 cyl engine is like. Smoother, less noisy, and the driveline is simply better than my 13 Ex-L 4cyl. I won't discuss the CVT vs the 6A but suffice it to say, I prefer the 6A.

The Camry felt more responsive at throttle tip in and on the road.

I didn't know which model it was and after the first block, I said "it has to be an SE, this thing rides like a wood wagon". I did not test handling but under normal circumstances, I prefer the Accord. I imagine the non SE Camry might match the Accord ride comfort. Cabin noise is better in the Camry, road noise in the SE is similar to the Ex.

To sum it up, I am less impressed with the 4 cyl Accord the more I drive it and when compared to others, it becomes more apparent that the 4cyl/CVT is very meh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: accordrey
#2 ·
Not a bit surprised. The J series V6 is the only thing that makes the Accord worthwhile. My sympathies to all the 4 cyl Accord owners out there. After getting a Sport as a loaner once, I can't imagine driving that on a daily basis. Honda 4 cylinders are rough to begin with and the CVT makes it even worse. Its a very bad engine/driveline combo as far as smoothness and refinement go.
 
#5 ·
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but both my Accord and my wife's CRV have the same drivetrain and they operate smoothly while providing plenty of power and torque for every day normal driving situations.

I'm glad to hear that you are happy with your V6 because the J series engine is a great power plant. I will take your sympathy all the way to the bank by paying less at the pump over the yeard and less for initial purchase. :grin
 
#3 ·
I haven't had the opportunity to drive a Camry but I have driven a Corolla. It seems that a Corolla is considered an intermediate size car by Avis. Could you be more specific by your description of the Accord 4cyl/CVT as meh. I consider the Corrolla to be a very nice but very uninspired driving car.
 
#4 ·
The Camry has always offered excellent engines, transmissions and seats. They have also had very “smooth rides” which also lead to criticisms of its suspension tuning. This "firm" SE suspension piques my curiosity. The 2.5-liter Camry is supposed to be 7.9 seconds to 60 versus 7.5 seconds for the Accord I4-CVT but yet you say the “slower” Camry has better throttle response. I wonder why. Does the Camry have an ECO mode? Could Honda’s DBW programming dull the throttle too much in an effort to satisfy CAFÉ requirements?
 
#44 ·
I had 2013 Sport with CVT and lost at 0-60 to my friend's 2012 2.5 LE as many times as we raced. No need to say that I was surprised or more like upset... I drove his car many times and I don't know and honestly don't care why, but his "slower" "rental" Camry LE on 17" wheels felt like a quicker, easier to control and more comfortable car vs my sport. And Camry's basic stereo sounds like a Hi-Fi system compared to Accord's stereo...
 
#7 ·
Too bad those 2.5's have oil consumption and piston slap issues. With the exception of the SE trim,Toyota/Lexus vehicles overall are known for a soft, pillow-like ride. Sad Honda cheapened out and axed the double-wishbone suspension. Older Hondas with DWS ride so much better than the new ones. Kudos to Toyota for sticking with an A/T for the Camry. I'd never buy anything with a CVT.
 
#11 ·
Too bad those 2.5's have oil consumption and piston slap issues. With the exception of the SE trim,Toyota/Lexus vehicles overall are known for a soft, pillow-like ride. Sad Honda cheapened out and axed the double-wishbone suspension. Older Hondas with DWS ride so much better than the new ones. Kudos to Toyota for sticking with an A/T for the Camry. I'd never buy anything with a CVT.
I owned a 2000 Accord Coupe which I gave to my son and replaced it with my current Accord Coupe. Although I wish the 9th generation car came with a double wishbone suspension, I can't tell any difference between the two cars. Unfortunately, my son got into a wreck in June and the car was totaled.

No one is forcing you to buy or drive a car with a CVT transmission but I like it and it matches up well with the engine. I liked it so much I bought my wife a 2015 CRV with the same engine transmission as in the Accord.
 
#9 ·
The Earth Dreams 4CYL/CVT IMO is not smooth. It's notchy to me so far. Have 4500 miles on it now and it's a little smoother but it feels like the propulsion goes in little steps that are linear but they are steps, not smooth. It is an evolutionary improvement over the buzzy K24 that was used up through the 2012 model. Heck, even my old Taurus pushrod Vulcan V6 guaranteed to implode at 180k miles was smoother.

We have this Earth Dreams drivetrain in our 2015 CRV which is our 3rd CRV. Sadly, this will be our last CRV couldn't imagine having this drivetrain in a Sedan which should have some level of sportiness or engagement. It's my wife's car and she is clueless about drivetrains so for the next car it will be something that is more of a better fit for her and me. It's adequate but considering for a few thousand more you can get an ultra smooth Gem with the V6. Even with the 6AT calibration issues and inability to hold gears it is a superior drivetrain, vastly superior. I'm glad I got one before they are discontinued. When you look at the MPG targets that manufacturers have to achieve in a few years, I don't know how they are going to do it. At the LA autoshow, the next gen Mazda CX9 is going the 4 cyl turbo route, not good. I have to agree with Bond-007 and II Kings on this one.
 
#15 ·
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same drive train. I have been very pleased with the I4 Earth Dreams engine and CVT transmission. Both my Accord and my wife's CRV EX FWD have more than adequate power and drive very smoothly while delivering excellent milage. I have driven the CRV, the Accord and a Subaru Legacy all with a CVT and in normal driving situations the average driver would be surprised that they were not driving a geared automatic.

I'm not sure what kind of V6 powered SUV your are referring. In the spring I drove an Acura RDX for a few days which has a V6 engine. I was impressed with the leather interior but the drive train was not that much better than the 2015 CRV for an additional $10,000.

As the CAFE standards get tougher turbocharging of smaller displacement engines is one way to go. The 2016 Civic will be available with a 1.5 liter turbo I4 with a CVT.
 
#12 ·
It's not smooth, it doesn't run well when it's cold etc. Maybe the car is not suited for you or the way configured. Maybe trade it in for another vehicle.
 
#13 ·
Sympathies? Oh come on bud its just a V6. You're not exactly driving an M3 now...

The J series is a nice engine and all, sure feels slightly quicker than the I4 but when most new cars are getting turbos slapped on them and dual clutches like the DSG blow torque converter units out of the water...just saying, lets not get an any high horses...

The CVT in the new sport is great in the city, not too bad at all in the turns. Can't be launched but the Accord isn't exactly a performance car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: easymike
#17 ·
Flyboy, I am referring to the same Earth Dreams I4/CVT as are you. Of course we will have a different interpretation of what is smooth with the operation of this powertrain but considering that Honda took some huge swings with the Earth Dreams tech with a CVT and DI, it is hardly a win win compared to the 2014 powertrain. Real world MPG is marginally better and the disconnected driving experience with the CVT is a step backwards IMO. I like to know what gear I'm in and based upon the sound of the engine and how fast I am going I can usually tell, not with this drivetrain it's a flatline, probably good for the masses but not for me. It's just another step in removing the driver and a creation of A to B boring transportation that is reliable and efficient.
 
#18 ·
My wife was driving an 07 Fit Sport which has a 1.5 liter engine, 5 speed geared automatic and a much smaller/lighter car and got the same or less gas milage as in the CRV. There's no comparison between the Fit and the CRV. I can't imagine that the 2014 version of the CRV can achieve nearly the same milage as the new version.

Drivability is a very subjective perception. I travel for business every six weeks and drive lots of rental cars whose drivability is not as smooth or as good as the Honda 2.4 liter Earth Dreams engine and CVT. Last week I drove a Chrysler 200 with the same size I4 engine and a nine speed automatic. The drivability was no where as nice as either my Accord or my wife's CRV. The transmission in the Chrysler was occasionally jerky when shifting and on the freeway the transmission could not always figure out which gear it should be operating. A good CVT would have smoothly changed to the best 'gear' ratio to keep the engine operating at the best RPM for the situation. Unless I pay very close attention during normal city street driving to the drivability aspect of any of the rental cars they don't drive appreciably different than the Honda CVT equipped cars. During hard acceleration there is a difference in the way the engine RPM reacts because the geared transmission has a limited number of gears. The CVT has an infinite number of gear ratios for the computer to choose.

As was mentioned earlier we are talking here about midsize, mid priced family cars and not sport sedans, sports cars nor luxury cars that cost nearly twice as much money.
 
#23 ·
I test drove a 2015 Camry LE back to back with a 2015 Accord LX CVT with two friends a while ago and the drivetrain in the Camry was definitely good. The acceleration was more linear than the Accord and I definitely felt that it had more initial pick up than the Accord as well. After about 30 or 40, however, the power in the Accord definitely takes over. I would get a sudden surge of power and it felt like the more powerful engine that the spec sheet suggests. Strangely, as much as I said I would prefer a 6 AT (the only thing I was looking forward to in the Camry) over the CVT, I actually was kinda left puzzled, and in some ways, felt I'd prefer the smoothness shifting of the Accord after the test drive... Other things I liked about the Camry vs Accord: Much better sound system than the crappy one in the LX, slightly more comfy seats, quieter ride (but to my shock, not by much as I had expected), regular AT. Things I liked better in the Accord: better seating position, larger backup camera (the one in Camry is very small, it's almost useless), better interior layout, better exterior styling (subjective I know), better steering response and overall much better driving experience- no surprise here really. Obviously, I knew which one I was going to pick going into the test drive and the drives did not change my mind at all, but the funny thing was, one of the two friends that came along was dead set on the Camry before going in, but by the end of the drive he actually said he preferred the Accord and he actually got one a few weeks later. Well, both of them did lol.

As far as the comments regarding the double wishbone suspension, I definitely agree. I wish Honda would go back for the 10th ten for the Accord, but I doubt it will happen. I definitely noticed the difference in ride quality. I cringe every time I'm about to run over a pothole of a bump and try to avoid them like plague, something I didn't have to do nearly as much in both my '11 v6 and '06 LX. They ain't perfect, but they are all great cars nonetheless.
 
#25 ·
I had a 14 Camry SE for a rental in Wisconsin for a few days last year. I thought it rode a little better than my 13 EX-L, but not much. It wasn't much quieter either - maybe just a touch. Overall I thought it was a nice enough car but the interior would stop me from buying one. Lots of cheap feeling hard plastic everywhere. Honda does a much better job on the cabin for the Accord IMO. That said I haven't been in the redesigned Camry which is supposed to be better.
 
#26 ·
I have always felt Honda does better in terms of the feel of the quality of interior buttons on the surface and also the response when buttons and switches are pushed and turned. My 2002 corolla felt cheaper inside. The 2006-2011 Camry was horrible. I actually liked the look for the 2012-2014.5 interior of the Camry and found it acceptable. But I know my Sport interior's is better. I remember the first time I did a test drive of the Sport, the first thing I did was setup my Bluetooth. As soon as I felt the smoothness and feedback of the button, I looked at the salesman and said this is my car.

Again, I know the Toyota buttons will work forever but as we all know, the competition has improved so much that the decision to buy a car will come down to these important details.

Last point, I felt the new corollas that came out last year are amazing inside in terms of quality feel and look.
 
#28 ·
I think the problem here is your tone. Maybe you don't realize, maybe you don't care, but you come off as a pompous azz. So while you posts include facts that are accurate, how you communicate them causes people to perceive you as coming off as if you are better than them. It seems to reek of insecurity.

Just sayin...

You do resize the thread is about a comparison between a 4 cyl Camry and a 4 cyl sedan, right? Lol
 
#29 ·
As I mentioned in another thread my Earth Dreams (terrible name) engine with a 6MT is literally as smooth as any 4 cyl engine I have owned or driven. When the car is idling I can't feel the engine or hear it if the windows are up, the only way to tell if it is running is to look at the tach. I can't comment on the CVT because I have never owned or even driven a Honda with a CVT.

The Camry may well have a very nice AT but I didn't bother looking at it when I bought this Accord because the Camry doesn't offer a 6MT any more.
 
#31 ·
The Bottom Line

As I mentioned in another thread my Earth Dreams (terrible name) engine with a 6MT is literally as smooth as any 4 cyl engine I have owned or driven. When the car is idling I can't feel the engine or hear it if the windows are up, the only way to tell if it is running is to look at the tach. I can't comment on the CVT because I have never owned or even driven a Honda with a CVT.

The Camry may well have a very nice AT but I didn't bother looking at it when I bought this Accord because the Camry doesn't offer a 6MT any more.
The bottom line is that the Camry can only be compared to the Accord sedan with an automatic transmission. If you don't like a CVT, for either real or imagined reasons, then you can buy the Accord V6 with a non CVT transmission or the I4 with a manual six speed. Toyota stopped building manuals as did almost every other manufacturer of midsize, mid priced cars. Honda still offers a manual transmission, which only the ghost of Soichiro Honda know's why, and a coupe version. I think Mazda offers a manual in the Mazda 6, but not a coupe. Of course the Germans build four door coupes which is an oxymoron. Of course the Germans have a history of telling a lie often enough and people begin to believe it's the truth.

If you want a manual transmission and or a coupe body style the choices are limited in the midsize category for under $35,000 to the Accord. Personally, I like having a real two door coupe with a back seat that's big enough to carry an adult which narrowed my choices. I went for the I4 for fuel economy as my daily driver and I gave little thought to the automatic transmission. After driving the car for awhile I became a big fan of the CVT. Of course the new Accord Coupe Turning trim level is getting close to the price of the entry level luxury market.

Both the Camry and the Accord are the perennial best sellers in the midsize category and both companies build very nice and reliable cars. If you want to manually shift the gears the Accord is your choice and if you want a coupe body than the Accord is your choice. In the four door sedan sector their are more choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TannerG and rexgo
#32 ·
I find the 4cyl Accord just meh because it's nothing special in terms of driving. It gets great MPG and while on the move (freeway only) I have no complaints. City putt putt crude 4cyl behavior is what I dislike. Noise, CVT jerkiness (low speed), and overall city performance is just adequate-nothing special. The S60 by comparison is great. Not fair because it's a turbo with impressive low end performance but it is not perfect. While I love the 8A tranny, it is programmed to seek the highest gear at light throttle and can lug the engine like an old manual in 5th when you should be in 3-4. A fair comparison is the Camry and it simply drives better to me (I am really only talking engine/drivetrain) and paid no attention to other things on purpose. The crashing of the suspension over bumps was too obvious to ignore.

The Camry engine is smoother, quieter, and I like the way the 6A shifts much like my 8A Volvo. I don't like the way the CVT varies the RPMs (zero issues on the freeway), maybe in 50 years I will. I know, "but the CVT maintains optimum power and MPGs blah, blah, blah". The Mazda 6 has a very nice 6A and gets better MPGs than the CVT Accord so the "put up with your CVT dislikes in the name of superior MPGs" simply doesn't flush down my toilet.

Before anyone thinks "he got a fancy Euro Volvo and now the Accord is chopped liver", my Accord observations predate my Volvo by about 2.5 years which is documented in several of my posts here.

And yes, I wish I got the V6 and no I won't trade. Jr has his temps and an Ex-L Accord 4cyl is more car than he needs.
 
#34 ·
Chocolate or Vanilla?



Do you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream? I like chocolate and both are good. If you don't like chocolate that's ok. That's why there are more than one kind of four door, midpriced family sedans on the market. Camry has a six speed auto and Honda has a CVT. Chrysler has a nine speed auto, Subaru has a boxer engine and a CVT. Some folks here are disappointed that Honda decided to go with the CVT, but that's life. :crying

I understand that you are in love with your Volvo and that's great because it's in a different league than the Accord. I'm sure they would never put a CVT in a Volvo. :devil
 
#33 ·
I can't stand the noises that Camry inline-4s make. They sound just like a transportation appliance is expected to... Like a blender. I'll take a k24 over it any day. There's just no enthusiasm in that engine at all imo.

The current J series is the best V6 in its class. It combines everything you need in a neat package that no turbo 4 or other family car V6 can beat
 
#36 ·
Before anyone thinks "he got a fancy Euro Volvo and now the Accord is chopped liver", my Accord observations predate my Volvo by about 2.5 years which is documented in several of my posts here.
That's definitely true, but I remember your first posts regarding the Accord, and you seemed pretty happy with it then. Did the engine/transmission concerns not appear during the test drive, or did they just get worse over time?

Regarding the Camry, I've only ever driven/been in a 2006 Camry LE. It rode smoothy and was quiet, and the interior was quite classy and elegant, but the braking was mushy and it otherwise didn't stand out much. Toyota seems to have gone the other way with the 2012 + Camry, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I like the exterior styling more now, but Toyota's interiors look too tech-y and lost the elegance they once had.
 
#37 ·
That's definitely true, but I remember your first posts regarding the Accord, and you seemed pretty happy with it then. Did the engine/transmission concerns not appear during the test drive, or did they just get worse over time?
I've always been impressed with the freeway performance but did not notice much in the way of the "putt putt" low speed performance until after 3-4K miles. I had the CVT fluid changed at the dealer around 15K which really helped to smooth out the stuttering and stammering (enough to make wife notice who doesn't usually comment about driveability) but did nothing for the ho-hum low speed engine noise, vibrations in the steering wheel from the engine, and lack luster throttle response (from a start).
 
#38 ·
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, unfortunately there can be things that don't show up on a test drive. The firm ride of my 2007 Accord was one. I grew to love how it rode, but on the way home after I bought it, I came across some bumpy roads and was surprised how much I felt the impacts.

And yes, I agree the K24 isn't the quietest at low speeds- it's particularly true in my CRV, which revs higher in normal low speed driving on average than my Accord. It shines more once it's pushed.
 
#47 ·
I find it very interesting that anyone thinks their Accord is a "performance" car that offers spirited driving. Buy a Honda 2000 and row through the gears in real spirited driving.

The MB of the early 1960s didn't even offer an automatic transmission. Their ads read, "You shift the car instead of the car shifting you." Of course their early automatic transmissions shifted abruptly. The purpose of an automatic transmission is to relieve the driver of having to manually shift gears and should do the job quietly and smoothly while selecting the best gear ratio for the situation. Computer technology allows a CVT to do both jobs effortlessly and keep the engine in the best torque range while providing great fuel economy.

Honda is an engineering company and the CVT is an example of great power train design along with VTEC and CVCC. They have spent a lot of time engineering a very light jet airplane called the Hondajet. Besides revolutionary aerodynamic engineering they have developed their own jet engine design in conjunction with GE.

Toyota builds nice cars but they don't offer a coupe or a manual transmission. I still think that the 10th generation Accord may spell the end of the manual transmission and maybe the end of the coupe. I drove my last Accord coupe for 16 years and hopefully this one will last just as long.
 
#50 ·
I have one of each

I have a 2014 Accord CVT and a 2015 Camry 6 auto.

The Camry has, without question, a much smoother ride.

The Camry is faster from 0-25 mph, but, the Accord is faster anywhere else.

When I drive them, the Accord gets about 4-5 mpg better fuel economy.

The Camry is quieter on the highway, both wind noise and tire noise.

The Camry seat is much more comfortable to me...and the Accord headrest projects too far forward for my preference.

The Accord's trunk is a little larger, I think the interior of the car is overall a bit wider than the Camry.

The partial pop-up trunk on the Camry is actually a nice feature when your hands are full.

I actually like the way the CVT slows the car, so, in stop-and-go traffic, I find I don't have to brake as often. Or, when approaching a slower car, or going downhill, just lifting off the throttle is often sufficient to slow the car. Maybe the brake pads might last longer on the Accord.

Overall, the Camry feels more connected, more solid. But, I bought the Accord for several thousand less than the Camry.

Both are fine for a 4-cylinder family sedan. I wouldn't get too worked up over either one of them being stolen...they're appliances, not meaningful expressions of my persona.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baldeagle
#51 ·
I have a 2014 Accord CVT and a 2015 Camry 6 auto.

The Camry has, without question, a much smoother ride.

The Camry is faster from 0-25 mph, but, the Accord is faster anywhere else.

When I drive them, the Accord gets about 4-5 mpg better fuel economy.
This is helpful and confirms the accord was better for us. Apples to apples it was cheaper otd too.
 
#66 ·
I have free speech and to no one in particular I say "the cvt isn't engaging at all! It isn't fun to drive and doesn't offer much in the way of improved fuel economy compared to other autos out there or even when compared to the manual. I will now go on to express this exact opinion in any thread where the cvt gets mentioned." Every time someone asks a reasonable question about their car, I'll jump in from left field and tell them how terrible their transmission is.

Hope you all have enjoyed hearing my unwanted and unrequested opinion as much as I've enjoyed shoving it into yet another thread.
 
#67 ·
So much hate in this thread! The bottom line is if the MT sells well enough to justify a good profit margin over the CVT, we will see it in the 10th gen. If it doesn't then we won't. The way the Accord has been trending for the past 20 years, I'd guess we won't see it, or at least we will see less of it, just like generations past. The MT is dying because of sales and fuel economy.
 
#68 ·
No hate here (cue moronic devil emoji). I just felt like making unsolicited comments about a car that is of a type that I don't own. I hope that doesn't prove to be annoying or anything.


The bottom line is that the cvt feels like driving either a dead fish or a windup car, take your pick.
 
#71 ·
I love when threads become CVT v MT v AT smoothness and connectivity to the road, or I4 v V6 MPGs. It's like arguing over which McDonalds cheeseburger tastes the best. FWIW, the MT will live on in Europe, and could still be imported for those who really want one, and Honda wouldn't kill the V6 unless it had a REALLY convincing turbocharged I4 to put in its place.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top