doug_999

Mike, since you asked - not that I need another "infraction" ..... posting pictures (worthless as some might call) about how a four door Accord's structure does not hold up as well as a four door Camry's structure in an effort to say the Camry four door is better than the Accord four door is Honda hating in my book.

mmarshall

Apples and Oranges. In a side impact, in general, the less the car is deformed, the better it protects those inside. In a front or rear impact, however, that is not the case. You WANT the structure to give and deform somewhat....that is why front and rear "crush zones" are built into most modern vehicles. Up to an extent, the more the front and rears fold up like an accordion, the more crash energy they absorb, and the more occupants inside are protected. This only works to a limited extent, though.....you don't want the structure to fold up so much that the gas tank/fuel lines are ruptured, causing a fire, or the engine/transmission assembly is pushed back into the cabin.

This is why auto body, chassis, and safety engineers make big bucks......and why they earn every dime of it.

Mr. Jones

or you could click the links where the structure is rated below the Camry's by the IIHS. the Accord's structure is rated average, while the Camry's is rated good. C&D can preach all year about how great the Accord is but its structure obviously isn't as good.

TJW98LS

iTrader: (1)

That was the old Mazdas. The new ones are pretty solid to be honest. Ive got a friend who has a B3000 with 200K miles on it and still rund nice. My sister drives a 2007 Mazda 6 and she hasnt had any problems with it. I'd consider the Mazda 6...they drive nice and look good.

doug_999

And once again, the IIHS rates the Accord a top safety pick not the Camry.....

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

ecr527

It's kinda hard to compare a coupe to a sedan. Based on looks alone, I personally would go with the Accord. I saw a coupe the other day, and call me crazy, but I thought the side profile of that car looked similar to a BMW 6 series. The only thing I didn't like about the Accord was that it seemed like there was too much going on with all the buttons on the dash. I cant really comment on performance since I've never driven either one of them.

Mr. Jones

there is only one thing holding the Camry back from a top safety pick and its the seat. Though I'm sure your convinced Toyota can't design a seat to get through IIHS seat test. The INSURANCE institue of highway safety is interested in minimizing whiplash compenstation and that is the sole reason they test the seat.

Once again your attempting to divert the topic to skirt the Accord's inferior structure.

Fact is there is NO EXCUSE for the Accord getting an average structural rating while the Camry recieved a good rating 2yrs earlier. Honda is most certainly cutting costs since they refused to update one of their global platforms, so like the RL the Accord gets an average rating.

while various mags will hate on the Camry for interior fit and finish and point out Toyota cost-cutting, they refuse to apply the same standard to Honda and hold them accountable for failing to update their global platform. Anyone who refuces to apply the same standard to both Toyota and Honda is nothing more than a Toyota hater in my book.

doug_999

The IIHS only cares about three ratings (and they make this clear on the link above)
Frontal offset crash
Side Impact
Rear Crash

They do not put much value on the structure rating (let the structure disintegrate as long as the passenger area is protected?). So your insistence that the structural rating should even be considered by a potential buyer is sort of silly.

What you SHOULD be focusing on is that the Accord comes STANDARD with VSA and the Camry does not. THIS is why the IIS picks the Accord as a top rated car.

jdoggg1

Anyone think this is a good/great deal? I haven't checked carfax yet.

http://www.milpasmotors.com/inventor...5A074296.shtml