(first posted 1/28/2015) Jackie or Marilyn? Rolling Stones or Beatles? Mustang or Camaro? These epic comparisons often border on epic rivalries that in turn, lead to die hard fans. While the Ford Mustang/Chevy Camaro rivalry may be among the most enticing in the automotive world, there’s no denying that another epic showdown has existed in America’s most popular car segment for three decades: the Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry.
Dating back to the early-1980s, these two front-wheel drive family sedans have been duking it out in America’s most competitive segment, often for the title of best selling car in America. From their humble compact beginnings, both cars have evolved into substantially larger and higher content cars. Yet through it all, these two mainstays have stuck to the same game plan, and their loyal consumers have largely stuck to them.
Since the 1990s, both the Accord and Camry have operated in five-year generation cycles, with a new Accord arriving one model year behind the latest Camry. This has allowed them to compete with one another pretty fairly, and makes it especially easy to compare generations with one another. A whole series of articles could be written comparing each generation of Accord versus Camry, but for today the subject focuses on the 1997-2001 Camry and the 1998-2002 Accord.
On paper, both cars appear very similar. Both were front-wheel drive, mid-sized four-door sedans (the Accord was also available in a rather sexy coupe, but this comparison is strictly sedan-only). Each offered the choice of a 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, and inline-4 and V6 engines. They both had the same 14.1 cubic feet of cargo capacity, and in V6 form, identical curb weights. The Camry rode on a 105.2 inch wheelbase, and was 188.5 inches long, 70.1 inches wide, and 55.4 inches tall. The Accord rode on a slightly longer 106.9 inch wheelbase, and was 188.8 inches long, 70.3 inches wide, and 57.3 inches tall.
In real life though, differences were more substantial, and I’ll get into that. I should also add that I am very familiar with both of these cars, as two of my aunts each purchased a brand-new 1997 Camry and 1998 Accord. It’s best to start chronologically, so I shall start with the Camry.
(1992 Camry)
The 1997 Toyota Camry had big shoes to fill. The preceding 1992-1996 Toyota Camry was a huge sales success, annually taking the number two spot behind the Accord as the best-selling import (despite American assembly). Commonly regarded as the best Camry of all time, it managed to post yearly sales increases, hitting the 350,000 mark in 1996. A huge leap forward from its narrow-body, economy-rooted predecessor, the 1992-1996 Camry offered vastly superior levels of space, comfort, features, and value, all wrapped in very Lexus-like sheet metal. It was a reliable, well-equipped car for the money, with some Toyota accountants even pegging it as too much of a value for the price point. This factor, combined with the mid-’90s hyper-inflation of the Japanese yen, dictated substantial cost-saving measures in the development and production of the next Camry.
So, just what did these cost-saving measures entail? Luckily, the majority of cost-saving translated to a design that used fewer components for easier and cheaper production, as opposed to the typical decrease in material quality. The model lineup was also slashed, with no coupes, sporty SE models, or wagons (for the North American market, that is). Overall, the 1997 Camry was a minor evolution of its predecessor, which in many aspects wasn’t a bad thing. There were several improvements, such as longer wheelbase for greater comfort and incremental output increases for both the carryover engines, but overall, the 1997 Camry didn’t offer much in the way of anything new to get excited about. Then there was the styling.
Where the 1992 Camry was a rather highly-styled, upscale design for its class, the 1997 looked almost retrograde. Elegant curves were replaced by straighter, more angular styling. The slight hint of athletic shoulders at the ’92’s C-pillar were gone too. The new Camry looked far less premium, far more appliance-like, and frankly, like it could have come before the 1992-1996 model.
This was especially true in the rear, which looked frumpy and uninspired, with a pinched-in look. The very slim taillights didn’t help, looking like they came from 1990.
Likewise, interiors looked equally bland and sterile. Fit-and-finish and material quality were still among best in class, although once again the interior design was largely retrograde. Much like the exterior, simple straight lines dictated interior design.
The driving experience could be described best as predictable. Smooth and quiet, adequate power in the V6, and overall an easy car to drive – no surprises. Not much in the way of dynamic handling, but that was not the intended goal of this car.
While it may sound like I am hating on the 1997-2001 Camry, in truth it was not a bad car. Objectively speaking, it was a totally adequate car for what it set out to do. The main issue with the ’97 Camry was that it offered little to no improvement over its predecessor, something that all redesigns should strive for. Its design was also a major step backwards, especially considering that it was chosen among more engaging design proposals like this one. Other designs considered can be seen at Autos of Interest.
(1994 Accord)
Now let’s get to its arch enemy, the Honda Accord. Arriving one year later, the 1998 Honda Accord was a very different story. Its own 1994-1997 predecessor was a fine car, although not so much of a standout as the ’92 Camry, making it less of a tough act to follow.
(1999 Acura TL)
The new and larger Accord now rode on the same platform as the premium Acura TL/Honda Inspire, arguably one of the best-handling front-wheel drive sports sedans of its time. While the family-oriented Accord was hardly a sports sedan, handling certainly benefited from the TL, and was commonly regarded as best in class.
A bit of TL could also be seen in the Accord’s styling, which was somewhat more expressive than its Camry rival. Despite nearly identical exterior dimensions, the Accord’s lower hood, steeply raked windshield, and upswept belt line gave it a decidedly sportier appearance. Flared fenders, side skirts (on ES and SE models), and a character line running the length of the vehicle also enhanced the Accord’s more aggressive looks.
Additionally, owing to the 4-door Accord’s somewhat sportier styling was its related coupe variant. Although the two shared minimal body panels, there was strong visual relation to the Accord Coupe, whose design was finalized a year earlier than the sedan.
Overall, at least in your author’s opinion, the 1998 Accord was the more attractive vehicle of the two by far. While the mid-size car segment dictated a certain degree of conservatism for mass appeal, Honda didn’t take this a sign to design a car as visually numbing as novocain.
Inside, the Accord would appear to have the advantage too. While the Camry’s dash board and instrument panel appeared square and uninspired, the Accord’s looked significantly more stylish and modern, while remaining highly ergonomic and driver-focused. Material quality and color schemes seemed to hint at a touch more of upscale nature, especially when compared to the previous generation Accord.
So, the 1997 Toyota Camry and the 1998 Honda Accord, was one a better car than the other? That’s a question which, unfortunately, really can’t be answered. It’s like asking is red or white wine better; it’s a matter of preference (I personally prefer red, although I still get a taste for white every now and then).
It’s suffice to say that this generation Camry was the more reliable of the two, due to the Honda’s transmission issues. Like several other Honda products from this time, this generation Accord was prone to transmission failures in the 4-speed automatic, when mated to the V6, due to a defect in the torque converter. This issue prompted class-action lawsuits against Honda, and Honda extend warranties for some model years, replacing transmissions for other years on individual basis.
I’m sure in more recent years, many owners of these now elderly Accords simply chose not to replace transmissions, sending them to the great junkyard in the sky earlier than the Camry. That said, the Camry was not without its own reliability issues, specifically regarding engine, suspension, and brake issues. Despite the transmission issues, I still see just about as many of this generation Accord on the roads as Camry. I should also add that my aunt’s 1998 Accord EX V6 made it twelve years and over 200,000 miles before having any transmission issues.
Again, naming the “better car” of the two is a matter of deep-rooted opinion. Accord buyers tend to buy another Accord, and Camry buyers tend to buy another Camry. I’ll bet there are very few people who have switched between the Accord and Camry.
Now as you’ve probably detected by now, I’m more team Accord. Why is that? Well, as I’ve mentioned the Accord was, and continues to be a more dynamic entry in the mid-size segment. Offering better handling, what I feel to be more attractive styling, and better interiors, the less staid Accord is more my kind of car. In fact, I basically drive the slightly smaller European Accord, which I have nothing but praise for.
Additionally, as I mentioned, two of my aunts owned a 1997 Camry LE and a 1998 Accord EX. While there was nothing I particularly disliked about the Camry, there was just more I liked about the Accord. Both cars exhibited excellent fit-and-finish, and provided comfortable, composed rides, but the Accord always seemed a bit more fun. It’s rev-happy engine always produced more appealing sounds, and even as a passenger, it just seemed more confident at higher speeds.
But despite the 1997 Camry’s seemingly lack of major improvement and step backward in terms of styling, 1997 was the year the tides turned in the Camry’s favor. Beginning in 1997, the Toyota Camry would be the best selling car in its class, and the best selling car in America, a title it has held every year since, except for 2001. So, is Toyota’s softer, more conservative approach the key to success in this class?
It’s safe to say that both cars succeeded their intended missions, in being spacious, affordable, and durable family sedans, at the top of their class. Yet in creating these sedans, Toyota and Honda followed considerably different paths in their executions. Which car do you think pulled it off better?
While no one would mistake it for a sports car, the Accord tends to have relatively livelier handling, though at the expense of some road noise. OTOH, the Camry is tuned to have a softer and quieter ride.
Either will fill the bill for a long lived, reliable daily driver car.
Interesting test this one.Australia had both of these.I don’t know much of the Camry but know a little about the Accord better known in my part of the world as Homer.It was about the size of where an Early Commodore was two decades earlier.Funny we fast forward a decade or two since this and we have these small cars that make either redundant.I test drove a second generation Ford Focus 2.0L CL and in all areas except overall size it came up better than the 92-96 Toyota.200cc smaller but more power and torque.shame due to garage size couldn’t buy it as it was too wide and the people who built our home had next to no idea what the width of the new generation of small to medium cars is.
Very good article! I have had experience with both of these cars as my first car was a 2000 Camry LE 4 cylinder and a few years back I had a 2001 Accord EX V6 as a cheap, beater car while I saved up for something nicer. Both cars have their strengths and weaknesses, but I have always preferred the Accord’s way of doing things.
My grandmother was a two time Accord owner (she owned an ’85 LX and a ’92 LX) and when her ’92 LX hit the 8 year old mark she started looking for a new car. Her first stop was the local Honda dealership where she checked out a beautiful dark green 2000 Accord SE with aftermarket leather installed. I remember her telling me she didn’t like how loud the Accord was and she wasn’t a huge fan of the styling. My old neighbors at the time had just purchased a two tone White/Oak 2000 Camry LE V6 and after one test drive of that car she ordered her own Camry for herself. I remember being 10 years old at the time and absolutely furious she didn’t buy the Accord instead. Her Camry LE was a 4 cylinder but it had just about every option you could think of: leather, sunroof, alloy wheels, two tone paint, keyless entry, etc. When she pulled up to the house after getting the Camry I honestly thought it was a Lexus. It was a beautiful car and I can see why she preferred it to the Accord. It looked more luxurious and presented itself very well with the two tone paint. About 3 years after she purchased the car she told me she preferred her Accord’s as they were more fun to drive than the Camry.
My grandmother passed in 2006 just as I was turning 16 and I needed a car. My mom and dad purchased the Camry from her estate for $10k and at the time the car only had 32k miles on it. Even though I had been furious about her buying that car at the time, I grew to love it. Smooth, comfortable, great gas mileage and it was super reliable. I drove that car two years and put 30k more miles on it before I purchased my own car, a 2000 Cadillac STS (a car I wanted for years). That Camry was then passed down for my two brothers to drive and eventually became our spare car. My mom still drives that car today and after 16 years and 118k miles it has become the most reliable vehicle my family has ever owned. Other than basic maintenance it has been perfect.
Around the 2014 timeframe I had been through several cars and my car at the time, a 2004 Cadillac Deville was starting to nickel and dime me to death. I ended up selling that car for $4300 and was on the lookout for a 6th Gen Accord. For some reason I had always been a big fan of that body style and I knew that other than the transmission problems they were solid cars. I rode by a little buy here pay here lot and spotted a Satin Silver 2001 Accord EX V6 for $4k. The body was beat up and it had some rust and immediately dismissed the car. However the salesman told me to at least drive it first and then make my decision afterwards. I got inside and it was immaculate and when I started it up and saw the mileage on the odometer I was in for a huge shock. The car had 240k miles on it. I couldn’t believe how smooth the engine was after so many miles. Everything worked like a swiss watch and that J30 V6 was still sewing machine smooth. All of the controls from the turn signal stalk to the climate controls and even the radio controls had a weighted, heavy feel that masked the cars age. I pulled out of the parking lot and drove down some country roads and starting getting on the car a little bit. The transmission was a bit sluggish but still shifted nicely and didn’t seem like it was having too much trouble. I could overlook the body damage and slight rust for what seemed like a great car. I paid $4200 for the car and was on my way.
I owned the ’01 Accord for eight months and came to appreciate how well built and designed the car was. How many 2001 Chevrolet Malibus do you see on the road still? Ford Taurus? This car felt like it was a level above those cars and honestly felt a lot more controlled and planed than the Camry. The double wishbone suspension was fantastic as the car tracked so straight on the highway compared to other cars in the class. No need for constant small corrections… the steering was fantastic (other than being a little vague on center). My issues with the car were limited to a clogged EGR port that $10 of throttle body cleaner and an afternoon with a toothbrush solved. 5 months into my ownership the car developed a nasty oil leak at the rear main (common on older J30 V6 cars) and instead of adding a heavier weight oil or just keeping it topped off, I fixed it. $800 later the car was back on the road and I planned on getting some of the body work fixed and driving it to 300k+ miles. I felt that confident in the car. However one early January morning the transmission started acting up and I knew it was the beginning of the end. The fluid had been changed twice in 10k miles and it wasn’t wise to invest $3000 into a new transmission. I quickly traded it for a 2008 Accord EX-L which was a very nice car itself but it didn’t have that solid Honda feeling the 2001 did.
I just traded the 2008 in for a brand new 2016 LX and while the new car is fantastic in just about every way it still doesn’t have the solidity the older car had and the materials inside and out are cheaper than the 2001. The Camry has really gone downhill since 2002 and while the Accord had a misstep of it’s own with the 8th Gen car it still feels like a more substantial, more expensive car than the Camry.
Here’s a picture of the Camry… for some reason it won’t let you upload more than one picture at a time.
I owned a 2000 Accord EX (4 cyl), purchased used in 2002 with 48k miles. The six+ years I owned the car, I never had a mechanical issue. One complaint: the paint job on these do not hold up well over 9 years. My 12 year old Prius has a fantastic paint finish that, when cleaned up, looks showroom new.
As I noted back when this story first appeared, the paint on my ’99 Accord coupe was absolute garbage. Peeling clearcoat, and it would scratch if you so much as gave it a dirty look. By the time I sold it in 2006, there were nicks, scratches and dings down both sides. For such a trouble-free and well-built car, Honda’s failure on paint in the late 90s is appalling. The ’95 Accord I had before it had no such issues. And while GM gets plenty of well-deserved crap for peeling paint, my dark blue ’91 Corsica still looked great when I traded it on the first Accord.
It’s interesting to revisit the article now a few years later. After decades of building blandmobiles, Toyota is trying to give its cars more personality, but I find the current styling theme with Darth Vader mask-inspired grilles overwrought. The nose of the current Accord isn’t very attractive either, although I like the Honda’s sleek profile. Instead, I chose a Mazda 6, which I think is far more attractive.
It should be mentioned that the Accord owner faced a giant bill when the timing belt broke or, more commonly, stripped some teeth due to oil leaking on the belt. Pistons slamming valves…
The Camry driver simply called a tow truck if the t-belt broke.
This is a very true fact I found out myself on a -10 degree winter day with my same engined Celica years ago. Tow comes and the driver bangs a rubber mallet on my gas tank; “It’s your fuel pump”, then proceeds to try and take it to their shop instead of Toyota. Yeah right dude, you can “hear” a busted fuel pump in a car that’s insanely rare in the configuration I own in extreme cold?!? That was a hearty laugh and a cold No. Mom showed up as this is happening and gave me the stare of death when I told the tow driver he was full of… because why pay more at Toyota? And yes as I suspected, the timing gear skipped a tooth. I laughed in her face afterwards also when I reiterated how he diagnosed a bad fuel pump. We don’t talk cars anymore.
We joke about our different countries being like an alternative universe – but this article has really brought it home to me.
I’ve said before about the crazy premium prices charged for Honda products in Australia way back when, but I just happen to have a 1996 issue of Wheels alongside me. Just the right age to have prices for these two. Turning to the price guide in the back, and leaving V6s and wagons out of it to make the comparison as fair as possible, the Camry lists for $26,310 to $33,220. The Accord? $36,850 to $49,100. Ten Thousand 1996-value Dollars More.
Okay, local assembly would have made the Camry cheaper, I can accept that, and import duties and suchlike would’ve hiked the Accord’s price – but surely not that much!
Oh for a universe where they competed on equal terms. Having driven this model Camry, it would be sayonara Toyota!
What caused the difference? Demand or taxes?
Back when there was a strong difference in mission and execution between these two models, even though they’re near-identical twins in appearance. If you prioritized comfort, refinement, and smooth quiet operation, you bought a Camry. If you wanted a bit of verve at the cost of ride comfort and a lot of road noise, you got an Accord. There were real differences in how these two went down the road.
They started really getting into each other’s personal space around 2013. The Honda began to get quieter, softer, and bigger. The Toyota had an SE trim that really did reign in the handling. The biggest differentiator was the availability of a manual in some Accord trims. Now, even that’s gone and they’re both automatic-only sedans with styling-compromised rooflines and pretty comparable levels of noise, comfort, refinement, material quality and ‘sportiness’.
The styling has never been farther apart between them, but their operation has never been closer.
A truly excellent and accurate reply.
Well, except for my use of reign instead of rein 🙂
It’s the core of my beef with the auto press and the Accord: they’ve been so similar for the past near-decade that auto writers have resorted to exaggeration and cherry-picking to manufacture a favorable distinction.
That’s OK; I knew what you meant.
🙂
Toyota has taken a more conservative route with cars that offer softer ride number steering quieter cabin while honda has always embraced driver engagement more. Thyve applies this to all their cars. I have an odyssey and an accord for this reason. The odyssey felt like driving a larger accord while the sienna felt like driving a minibus. Camry felt like a smaller grand marquis while accord felt like a budget bmw. So yea im team HONDA.
I had a 1997 Camry; it was bought new and kept for 7 years and 111,000 miles. It was the volume model, the LE with 4-cylinder and automatic. I know these were criticized for cost-cutting compared to the prior generation, but for the most part, I saw more positives than negatives — the new model had adjustable rear seat head restraints, the hand brake was offset toward the driver’s seat (rather than the passenger’s on the ’96), and the car was rated Good in the IIHS moderate overlap test (compared to Acceptable for the 1995-96 models). Also, ABS was made standard on most models, including the LE 4-cylinder.
I remember Automotive News panning it for removal of the chrome trim around the windshield. Now how many cars have such trim?
Mine was part of the alleged engine oil sludging group. Ironically with this car, I finally decided to forego the once-obligatory 3,000-mile oil and filter change intervals and increased it to 5,000 miles, which worked out to about every 4 months. (The manual specified normal service intervals of 7,500 miles or 6 months.) I never had sludging.
Despite “only” 138 horsepower, the car seemed sprightly enough, and I never had trouble merging onto expressways.
The only reason it was sold was to get side curtain and side torso airbags on a newer 2004 Camry; otherwise it would have been kept longer.
My 1999 Camry 4 cyl work car is still squeek and rattle free at 268,000 miles. The most trouble-free car I everI owned (including 2 Accords). Boring and reliable is a virtue. I have other toys for entertainment.
Why I purchased my third Toyota; a 2019 Camry.
“As far as I know, the trans issues were only on the V6 Accords, which I’m sure accounted for a smaller percentage of sales than the I4 cars.”
Actually….no. We had 2 1998 Accords. Mine was a metallic black EX V6 coupe, while my wife had a mid line 4 door sedan with the 4. Both had the 4 spd automatic. I had leased my wife’s Accord, and we decided to purchase it when the lease expired. Like all of my cars it had been maintained “by the book” (not a saying one can use today with a Honda-no book, only IP readouts buried in some display layer, some place). I had traded my V6 coupe for something else before we bought the Accord 4 door 4 banger at the lease end. I very seldom drove her Accord so I was not aware of what the transmission was doing, and my non car wife said not one word. I finally drove it, well past the Honda warranty period of 3years/36K miles (it had @ 48K miles by then) when I discovered how it was…or wasn’t shifting. I took it back to our Honda dealer’s Service Dept…….WTH???
As we were repeat (many times over) customers I found out about the transmission problem: it was a epidemic……and the “good will extended warranty”. After the Service Manager tested it he went to bat for us, along with the dealer General Manager, with Honda. Bottom line: a new Honda spec remanufactured (dealers were NOT allowed to do anything except pull them and replace them) transmission was installed AT NO CHARGE. That no charge was in excess of $6000.00 parts and labor to Honda.
Given the dealer and Honda response was like that, is it any wonder why most of my car purchases since then have been Hondas??! Yes….I’ve gone a$tray 4 times! 🙁 Strange…we went back to a Honda each time.
As an aside: my 2 favorite Honda cars, so far, was our first one: a base 1988 3 dr HB, small 4 with 4spd stick, in light metallic blue, and a very handsome medium green metallic with ivory cloth interior 1993 Accord sedan also with a 4 spd stick. Both cars were delights to drive, comfortable with great mpg and very reasonable maintenance costs….”by the book”!! 🙂
Currently my wife has her third CR-V, a ’20 EX; while I have my solid RED ’21 Civic EX. I must say that the 1.5L turbo combined with a set of hi-performnce A/S Continental radials make my Civic, despite the blah CVT, a reasonbly fun to drive “economy” car. DFO