bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

false straw man. No one said they're dead. just dying a slow death.

the accord earthdreams engine and massively overhauled cvt combo is quite new.

lol

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

makes absolutely no sense. except murano those vehicles you mention eat camrys and accords for breakfast, they're WAY bigger (3 row too).

mmarshall

Yeah, Daihatsu brought the Charade sub-compact and Rocky CUV over here for a couple of years, from the late 80s to early 90s. It was obvious that they couldn't compete here in the long run, though, and they pulled out before long, despite promises that they wouldn't.

Here was my favorite of the American Daihausu commercials of the time, though it wasn't very prophetic:

1991 Daihatsu Charade commercial - YouTube

dseag2

Not to mention the Accord exterior has been freshened and looks quite nice now, and it now handles things like Apple Carplay. It is a great car in its current iteration, and I am seeing the '16 models everywhere these days.

To add to the topic, this car was for my cousin and my mother to tool around in, so I drove the CR-V as well, thinking they would like the extra cargo room, but it wallowed around like it was on stilts in comparison to the buttoned-down chassis on the Accord. No contest there. I got the accord. I would rather they be safe.

mmarshall

That so-called "wallowing" also (usually) means ride comfort over bumps. The CR-V is noted for its smooth ride compared to others in this class.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i did 2 long test drives in the '15 cr-v touring when i was shopping, and would have bought one had the one i was scheduled to pickup not been broken with a faulty electronic module. Anyway, i was impressed how it handled - very Honda predictable. Maybe the bigger wheels on the touring helped?

dseag2

That could be. The minute I drove the CR-V off the lot and down the street I was looking for excuses to move to the next car. I also found the interior to be pretty cheap-looking compared to the Accord or even the Civic.

mmarshall

What did you think of its overall build-quality? With a few exceptions (such as the noted attempt to cut costs on the 2012 Civic) Hondas are known for Swiss-Watch-quality materials and assembly.

Sulu

There is less usable passenger space in the RAV4 than the Camry. The perception is that the RAV4 is roomy, due to its greater height, which translates to greater headroom, but despite the greater width of the RAV4, passenger width is less than the Camry. This is especially so in the rear rear seat, which is very narrow, and closer to Corolla rear seat width than Camry rear seat width. Fitting 3 in the rear seat of the RAV4 is an extremely tight fit.

The only reason I can think of for this narrow passenger space is that the old Corolla platform that the RAV4 is based upon could not support a wider rear seat. Due to the cancellation of the Venza, Toyota does not have a true mid-size, 2-row crossover; there is the compact crossover RAV4 and there is the large, 3-row Highlander, but nothing to compete against the Nissan Murano nor the Ford Edge. Honda is in the same boat but the CR-V's rear seat is wider than the RAV4's.

Toys4RJill

I had already mentioned that the Rav4 is not truly a suitable or comparable replacement than the Camry, your points are well taken and I agree. Its an entry level Toyota built off the Corolla platform. Some of the bits and pieces in the interior come right from the Corolla. And you do not get a a lot more than you would get in a Camry. The rear seats of the Rav4 is smaller and the overall interior volume is less than a Camry. I do understand that buyers get a AWD with the Rav4 but the fuel economy suffers and honesty, $30K for a mid-range 4 cylinder Rav4 is a hard pill to swallow. People are simply picking features, AWD and a smaller car platform for similar money than you could spend on a Camry. Its too bad the 2.5 5-speed AWD Toyota Matrix is not still around, it would give a better understanding to those who are not understanding the Corolla comparison. The Rav4 is for those who do not want a Scion IM or the former Matrix.

The Camry should be all-new for this year, but it soldiers on in the 6th model years with engine options that are 11 years old. If the Camry was properly updated with new tech, a slightly larger size, new engines, and perhaps a more competitive price, it would sell better than it is. But Toyota still sold 32K units last month of the Camry which is still outstanding.

situman

The current gen Rav4 is neither here nor there. The next gen Rav4 with have the refinement and flexibility to be a true replacement/substitute for the Camry. Right now it is just an oversized Corolla in-between the Corolla and Camry, a stopgap product so to speak. It is still noisy and unrefined. With the new C-HR taking the entry level spot, the Rav4 can move up a segment in size and refinement, especially with the new TNGA platform and maybe new engines with the 2.0t at its current power level (the next NX might get a higher tuned version allegedly).

mmarshall

Well, as I see it, that alone proves that engines don't have to be constantly updated. In fact, in many cases, the longer an engine is in production, the more reliable it will likely be, because teething and even some long-term durability problems will have been worked out. One of the best examples of that was the old GM 3.8L V6, in both N/A and supercharged versions.

Toys4RJill

They do need to be updated. This is where I cannot agree with you. A newer Camry on a new platform that is lighter, perhaps larger with more efficient modern engines is next. Historically Toyota does not go 6 model years with the Camry. Just compare the new Honda Civic power number from their 1.5 turbo to the current 11 year old Camry engine. Then look at the MPG of the Civic which is just 300 lbs lighter than the Camry.

The hallmark of the Toyota brand is reliability. The Camry engines in the current model were reliable when they came out. I can't speak for the 3.8 by GM as they historically have produced very unreliable vehicles.

mmarshall

Well, you're arguing with yourself, not me. You yourself commented on how the Camry sold 32K units last month with a decade-old engine. Most Camry engines have indeed been reliable over the years, but the original 2.0 four in the 1Gen version was known for defective ignition-coils, and the 3.0L V6 had a huge number of sludge/gel problems if oil-change schedules were not religiously kept.

That engine was in production for so long (1962-2008) that it ended up more reliable than the sunrise.

Toys4RJill

There is something you are missing . The current sales of the Camry are down 12% for the month and 8% for the year, and they are need all-time high incentives. With a proper update, the Camry would be selling a higher volumes.