Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The new Camry has a hideous front end, but a nice rear. It looks wayyy better than the previous gen Camry on the rear end, but yes Toyota went over board with design that it looks frantic.
The Accord has an ok front end, but the rear looks too much like a Civic and is too “Coupe” like for being a sedan.
With every new car thesedays having low pro tires, including the Camry and Accord, how are they able to offer a smooth ride with tires only being a 40 or 50 series without allowing so much road imperfections and potholes entering the cabin?
BTW has anyone driven both cars on really rough pavement and compared the 2 in ride quality?
With every new car thesedays having low pro tires, including the Camry and Accord, how are they able to offer a smooth ride with tires only being a 40 or 50 series without allowing so much road imperfections and potholes entering the cabin?
Suspension design and geometry allows that. The tall tires in older cars were a primary component in ride control as shocks and geometry were primitive. Modern cars do all that work in the shocks/struts and geometry so they can reduce the flex in tire sidewalls for more precise handling and braking.
The new Camry has a hideous front end, but a nice rear. It looks wayyy better than the previous gen Camry on the rear end, but yes Toyota went over board with design that it looks frantic.
The Accord has an ok front end, but the rear looks too much like a Civic and is too “Coupe” like for being a sedan.
With every new car thesedays having low pro tires, including the Camry and Accord, how are they able to offer a smooth ride with tires only being a 40 or 50 series without allowing so much road imperfections and potholes entering the cabin?
BTW has anyone driven both cars on really rough pavement and compared the 2 in ride quality?
LED daytime running lights ugly on Camry they trying too hard
I gotta say the new Camry definitely caught my eye when I first saw one on the road. Fully loaded dark blue. White with black top looks quite striking as well. People always said Camrys were too boring and I agree but when they try something different they're now trying too hard.
I gotta say the new Camry definitely caught my eye when I first saw one on the road. Fully loaded dark blue. White with black top looks quite striking as well. People always said Camrys were too boring and I agree but when they try something different they're now trying too hard.
We were considering both cars, you really can't go wrong with a Toyota or a Honda. I personally liked the Accord but I read too many stories of the seats that feel fine on a test drive but 2 hours into a long trip they tend to hurt people. Now I'm not sure if that applies to the '18 but it scared me and I'm thinking Camry.
...As for Accords, I'd go with one from late '90s or early 2000s - before the bloat kicked in.
The 98-02 was a great design with lasting appeal. It might be kind of bland for today, but it's only recently began to look significantly dated. When you see one that's still in great shape, you might as well be looking at something only 10 years old, not 20.
This sounds strange but I don't like Honda because they get the perception of being cocky and stuck up.. it's the same reason people don't like the MN Vikings. Hondas are not even that cool that their owners should be acting like this. No I don't want to hear your modified exhaust.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.