A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Honda
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

accord vs jetta vs camry



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 17th 05, 03:44 AM
LordFoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
High Tech Misfit > wrote:

> Also, the Sonata is not as fuel efficient as Camry and Accord, regardless of
> engine. So if you do a lot of driving, the savings in purchasing a Sonata
> may be offset by higher refueling costs.


2006 V6 Auto Sonata EPA MPG is 20 city/30 highway, according to specs
listed at hyundaiusa.com.

2006 V6 Auto Camry LE EPA MPG is 20 city/28 highway, according to the
eBrocure now at toyota.com.

2006 V6 Auto Accord EPA MPG is 20 city/29 highway, according to
brochures now in dealer hands (see the Accord forum at vtec.net for
scans).

I've heard this fuel efficiency statement before, but with the most
closely equal engines, it isn't true.

On the other hand, you can't buy a V6 Accord or Camry for the price of a
V6 Sonata, and the Accord and Camry 4 cylinder models are indeed much
more fuel efficient than the V6 Sonata. Much slower, too.
Ads
  #12  
Old August 17th 05, 04:06 AM
High Tech Misfit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LordFoul wrote:

> 2006 V6 Auto Sonata EPA MPG is 20 city/30 highway, according to specs
> listed at hyundaiusa.com.
>
> 2006 V6 Auto Camry LE EPA MPG is 20 city/28 highway, according to the
> eBrocure now at toyota.com.
>
> 2006 V6 Auto Accord EPA MPG is 20 city/29 highway, according to
> brochures now in dealer hands (see the Accord forum at vtec.net for
> scans).
>
> I've heard this fuel efficiency statement before, but with the most
> closely equal engines, it isn't true.


Hmmm, perhaps the new Sonata has made advances in Korean fuel economy. But
other Hyundais like the Accent and Elantra do not even come close to
matching their Honda and Toyota competitors for fuel efficiency. I don't
know how EPA rated those particular Hyundais, but I am just going by what I
have heard and read in the media based on actual road tests.

However, EPA figures tend to be unrealistic at times. I have a '93 Accord
automatic that EPA rated as 22 city/28 highway. Although I do average about
22mpg in the city, my highway mileage is usually 32-34mpg. And I have heard
of many other automatic Accords like mine getting similar mileage. So
perhaps the current Accord can get better highway mileage than EPA says.
  #13  
Old August 17th 05, 05:03 AM
Pars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>
> However, EPA figures tend to be unrealistic at times. I have a '93 Accord
> automatic that EPA rated as 22 city/28 highway. Although I do average

about
> 22mpg in the city, my highway mileage is usually 32-34mpg. And I have

heard
> of many other automatic Accords like mine getting similar mileage. So
> perhaps the current Accord can get better highway mileage than EPA says.


EPA figures doesn't account for your personal driving style or your area's
environmental & geographical variance. But, I"ve found the EPA figures to be
highly useless when comparing vehicle against each other.

Pars


  #14  
Old August 17th 05, 05:11 AM
Pars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If fuel efficiency is a primary motivator, the amount of cylinder the engine
contains would be a secondary factor. Also, many high quality 4 cylinder
engines (like Camry & Honda) are as balanced and have sufficient power to
stand up against a V6 (in regular driving situation/conditions).

Pars

>
> > 2006 V6 Auto Sonata EPA MPG is 20 city/30 highway, according to specs
> > listed at hyundaiusa.com.
> >
> > 2006 V6 Auto Camry LE EPA MPG is 20 city/28 highway, according to the
> > eBrocure now at toyota.com.
> >
> > 2006 V6 Auto Accord EPA MPG is 20 city/29 highway, according to
> > brochures now in dealer hands (see the Accord forum at vtec.net for
> > scans).
> >
> > I've heard this fuel efficiency statement before, but with the most
> > closely equal engines, it isn't true.

>
> Hmmm, perhaps the new Sonata has made advances in Korean fuel economy.

But
> other Hyundais like the Accent and Elantra do not even come close to
> matching their Honda and Toyota competitors for fuel efficiency. I don't
> know how EPA rated those particular Hyundais, but I am just going by what

I
> have heard and read in the media based on actual road tests.
>
> However, EPA figures tend to be unrealistic at times. I have a '93 Accord
> automatic that EPA rated as 22 city/28 highway. Although I do average

about
> 22mpg in the city, my highway mileage is usually 32-34mpg. And I have

heard
> of many other automatic Accords like mine getting similar mileage. So
> perhaps the current Accord can get better highway mileage than EPA says.



  #16  
Old August 17th 05, 06:17 AM
Sparky Spartacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pars wrote:

> If fuel efficiency is a primary motivator, the amount of cylinder the engine
> contains would be a secondary factor.


Do you mean the displacement or the no. of cylinders?
  #17  
Old August 17th 05, 08:02 AM
noydb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Aug 2005 18:20:44 -0700, wrote:

First of all, the Jetta is much smaller than the Camry or the Accord.
The Passat is closer to the size of the latter two.

I test drove a Passat a couple of years ago and was absolutely blown
away. That beautiful, difficult to replicate German feel.
One thing killed the deal.
The Passat (and possibly the Jetta) REQUIRE premium fuel.
THAT is a deal breaker.
Look at the premium prices next time you fill up.

The Camry is about as perfect a design for what it is as I've ever
seen. But it's boring.

I ended up buying the Accord, mostly because of the 5-speed automatic,
which wasn't available on the Camry at the time.
That beautiful transmission remains my favorite thing on the car.
The Accord handles better than the Camry and the engine is more
responsive. Everything is just hair-trigger...the brakes, the
steering...I've really got no complaints.
However, in these performance related categories, the Accord just
barely beats the Camry.
But it must be said that the ergonomics of the Accord aren't nearly as
good as the Camry. Surprising actually, since Honda usually sets the
industry standard for such things...hell, they wrote the book.
The Camry interior is utterly perfect. Absolutely everything is
exactly where you expect it to be. The Accord interior is good, but
it has its quirks. The radio is just plain wrong. The volume button
belongs on the left, not the middle. The heating and ventilation
buttons are also wrong. You have to learn a new sign language to
operate them...there's no english explanation...just incomprehensible
diagrams that are supposedly universal. Stupid design.

All that being said, I'm still not sorry I bought the Accord.
It's still as tight as the day I bought it.
The 4 cylinder has an amazing blend of power and fuel economy.
There's really no need for the V-6.

You have to test drive both the Accord and the Camry.
One of them will feel just right.
Either one is a wise choice.

Cheers, --N

  #18  
Old August 18th 05, 12:31 AM
Pars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message
...
> Pars wrote:
>
> > If fuel efficiency is a primary motivator, the amount of cylinder the

engine
> > contains would be a secondary factor.

>
> Do you mean the displacement or the no. of cylinders?


Yep, Number of Cylinders, which is usually porportional to displacement...
However, there are exception which was a flop (example, Mazda's V6 1.8L
Precidia).

Pars


  #19  
Old August 18th 05, 02:41 AM
SoCalMike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pars wrote:
> "Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If fuel efficiency is a primary motivator, the amount of cylinder the

>
> engine
>
>>>contains would be a secondary factor.

>>
>>Do you mean the displacement or the no. of cylinders?

>
>
> Yep, Number of Cylinders, which is usually porportional to displacement...
> However, there are exception which was a flop (example, Mazda's V6 1.8L
> Precidia).
>
> Pars
>
>

aka mazda mx3. cute n quirky, but yes- a flop.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Camry Or Accord ? Robert11 Technology 4 July 18th 05 11:30 PM
Accord vs. Camry ? Henry Kolesnik Honda 26 June 7th 05 05:28 PM
Should I Replace VSV On 01 Camry To Clear Check Engine Light??? [email protected] Technology 2 May 7th 05 10:56 PM
2005 Accord: iPod-friendly? Paul Wylie Honda 11 April 5th 05 09:09 PM
Honda OEM Parts Catalogs for Sale Joe Honda 0 February 12th 05 02:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.