We switch to a different coffee shop the same week that we drive the 2013 Honda Accord EX and 2012 Toyota Camry LE. Our new place serves up double ristretto espressos for the same price as the single shots at our old watering hole, and we swear the foamed milk is denser and more flavorful.
In reality, of course, we're patronizing two coffee chains that are serving up pretty much the same product. Likewise, Honda and Toyota are trying to sell you, me, your dad, your boss's niece and 300,000 other people similar family cars for a similar price.
As in our latte, though, it's the details in these midsize sedans that matter. Subtle things that an ordinary person might overlook are everything to a car guy with a commute.
Honda made dozens of small improvements to the Accord for 2013, and in our full test, we found that they really changed the car for the better. But we already own a 2012 Toyota Camry and enjoy driving it to work. Although we suspect these family sedans may still be the same cup of Folgers, we won't know for sure without a head-to-head taste test.
So You Want To Spend $25,000
Your typical midsize sedan shopper envisions spending $25,000 before tax. That target necessitates a four-cylinder engine rather than a V6, and some self control when optioning the car.
Our 2013 Honda Accord EX has no extras other than a continuously variable transmission (CVT), an $800 option over the standard six-speed manual gearbox, resulting in a total price with destination of $26,195.
That's $320 more than the 2012 Accord EX from our last midsize sedan comparison test ($25,875) and there are more amenities here. Finally, we can make a hands-free call without an aftermarket earpiece, plus we can start the car with the key fob in our pocket (yes, it has a keyless ignition). We don't mind the standard back-up camera, either, even with the Accord's good sight lines, and having another tiny camera on the passenger-side mirror to help us check our blind spot is useful, too.
Tracking down a 2012 Toyota Camry (the 2013 model isn't out yet) that matches the 2013 Accord EX's equipment list proves to be a fool's errand, however. Actually, such a car does exist — it would be an SE model with the optional Convenience package, moonroof, power driver seat and floor mats, and a theoretical price tag of $26,755. Toyota doesn't have such a car to lend us, though, and our own navigation-equipped Camry SE is too expensive ($28,658). Instead, we settle on a Camry LE with the power driver seat ($440) and an as-tested price of $23,925. We would have taken a moonroof ($915) and 17-inch alloy wheels ($799), but it isn't to be.
Apart from its lack of cameras, though, the Camry LE has you covered in the key areas. True, there's no dual-zone climate control like there is in the Accord (as Toyota limits this luxury to the XLE model), but our interpersonal relationship with a significant other perseveres nevertheless, as we are able to negotiate a mutually acceptable fan speed with our better half. We don't have the Honda's trial XM subscription or Pandora integration either, but we can still stream Bluetooth audio or hook up to the Camry's USB port. Poor man's AM radio comes in fine in both cabins, though Dodgers announcer Vin Scully sounds more lifelike through the Accord's speakers.
One Is Quicker and More Efficient
Usually, our friends chuckle when we start describing the adequate acceleration of four-cylinder midsize sedans.
Nevertheless, there's plenty going on between the 2013 Honda Accord and 2012 Toyota Camry. See, Honda has replaced its usual automatic with a CVT. But you won't dread this one. Oh, the revs climb when we floor the throttle on the on-ramps, but as soon as we lift, our desired speed achieved, the engine rpm drops back without the usual CVT springiness as if we've just gotten an upshift from a conventional automatic. Also, Honda's new direct-injected, 2.4-liter four-cylinder has a smooth power delivery, and although its sound is unmemorable, it's not unpleasant.
And while this Honda Accord EX is only rated at 185 horsepower — 5 fewer horses than the last EX we tested — it feels stronger. Torque is the reason, as the 2013 EX's inline-4 is rated at 181 pound-feet at 3,900 rpm versus 162 lb-ft at 4,400 rpm for the 2012 version. This makes the 2013 Accord one of the quickest four-cylinder models in the class (non-turbocharged) with its 7.8-second 0-60-mph time and quarter-mile of 15.8 seconds at 91.2 mph.
Meanwhile, the Camry's 178-hp, port-injected 2.5-liter engine provides more off-the-line grunt in spite of its lower torque rating of 170 lb-ft at 4,100 rpm. But move out for a pass on the freeway or some back road and the six-speed automatic makes you wait around for downshifts. This is a well-tuned automatic, mind you, but it's up against Honda's unexpectedly good CVT, which is quicker at processing requests. The Camry LE reaches 60 mph in 8.4 seconds (8.0 with a foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and the quarter-mile in 16.1 seconds at 88.2 mph.
Honda has also gained the upper hand in fuel economy, as the 2013 Accord has a 30 mpg combined EPA rating to the Camry's 28 mpg combined rating. During our comparison test, the Accord averaged 26.3 mpg to the Camry's 24.9.
You Care About Handling
Handling still matters in a front-drive midsize sedan — if only because a well-damped ride and good steering feel will keep you from dozing off mid-commute.
And if that's the goal, the 2013 Honda Accord EX is the car to get. It's highly controlled as it goes down the freeway, and should you end up on a road with a bunch of turns, the Honda is actually kind of fun. Its new electric power steering might initially catch you off-guard with its light effort, but soon you realize the steering action is precise and also surprisingly informative.
In contrast, the Camry LE's electric steering isn't particularly accurate and has little to say. This is also true of our long-term Camry's steering, but our SE is otherwise amenable to cornering. Not so with this LE, which has a softer suspension calibration and smaller, all-season P205/65R16 Firestone Affinity Touring S4 tires. The car is slow to change heading and generally unhappy when the road isn't straight.
Slalom and skid pad performance reflect these differences. The 2013 Accord goes through the slalom at an impressive 65.5 mph, while the Camry is down at 61.0 mph. For reference, a four-cylinder Camry SE goes through the cones at 65 mph even. On the skid pad, the Accord manages 0.83g on its 215/55R17 Michelin Primacy MXV4 tires, while the Camry LE tops out at 0.77g.
Braking is a wash. The Toyota has a firmer pedal, which we like, but its 129-foot 60-0-mph stopping distance is long for this class. So is the Accord's 128-foot braking distance.
If you're fanatical about ride comfort, you'll prefer the Camry LE, which is noticeably more compliant than the Accord and our Camry SE. Like its predecessor, the Accord EX rides smoothly, but there's a firmness that your dad might not like. Cabin noise levels are comparable, as the Accord registers 62.0 decibels at 70 mph versus 62.5 in the Camry.
Same Cabin, Different Interior Decorators
On a functional level, the 2013 Honda Accord and 2012 Toyota Camry are equally good. They have the same wheelbase and track, and their passenger volume and trunk capacity are within 1 cubic foot of each other. They even have the same size gas tank. So if you're looking for gobs of rear legroom or an easy car seat installation, they've both got you covered.
Yet we'd rather sit in the 2013 Accord EX. Honda paid more attention to interior materials and design (particularly the center stack) in this latest redesign, and the result is a genuinely upscale ambience, even in a working man's Accord with cloth seats. The Honda's driver seat is better shaped and more supportive, too.
There's nothing seriously flawed about the Camry's design, but as in our SE, the mix of materials feels disjointed and some of the plastics aren't up to snuff for this class. The touchscreen audio interface isn't as slick, either, and we wish there were external AM and FM buttons for switching between sources.
A Matter of Taste
"Most automakers would kill for a car to feel this good at the beginning of its life cycle, and the Accord is at the end."
We wrote that in the logbook during our last midsize sedan comparison. And yes, the 2012 Accord was a good car. It handled well, its huge backseat accommodated 6-footers no questions asked, and its handsome, relaxed-fit sheet metal had a timeless appeal. But it was also slow for its class, and its drab interior had too few amenities to keep you busy during long commutes. So it didn't win that test.
Now the Honda Accord is back at the beginning, and it wins this test easily. As usual, it's the total package that makes this car special. The new four-cylinder engine and CVT work incredibly well together, providing usable performance and a real-world improvement in fuel consumption. Honda also improved the look and feel of the cabin, while adding the tech features that have become important in this class. In the midst of checking all those boxes, company executives didn't lose sight of details like handling and steering feel — key ingredients in the character of Accords past and present.
Next to the Accord, the 2012 Toyota Camry LE is down on flavor. It's every bit as useful as the Honda on the inside, but on the road, it's slower and wholly uninterested in doing anything other than taking you to work in comfort. For some, that's enough, especially given this LE model's competitive price tag.
But we'll pay a bit more for the 2013 Honda Accord's tastier brew. For the moment, it's the car to have in the four-cylinder midsize sedan class.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
Vehicle | |
---|---|
Model year | 2012 |
Make | Toyota |
Model | Camry |
Style | LE 4dr Sedan (2.5L 4cyl 6A) |
Vehicle Type | FWD 4dr 5-passenger sedan |
Base MSRP | $23,260 |
Options on test vehicle | Magnetic Gray Metallic Paint ($0), Power Driver Seat ($440), Carpeted Floor Mats ($130) |
As-tested MSRP | $23,925 |
Assembly location | Lafayette, Indiana |
Drivetrain | |
---|---|
Configuration | Transverse, front-engine, front-wheel drive |
Engine type | Naturally aspirated, port-injected inline-4, gasoline |
Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 2,494/152 |
Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing |
Compression ratio (x:1) | 10.4 |
Redline, indicated (rpm) | 6,400 |
Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 178 @ 6,000 |
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 170 @ 4,100 |
Fuel type | Regular unleaded |
Transmission type | Six-speed automatic |
Transmission ratios (x:1) | I = 3.300; II = 1.900; III = 1.420 ; IV = 1.000; V = 0.713; VI = 0.608 R = 4.148 |
Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 3.634 |
Chassis | |
---|---|
Suspension, front | Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
Suspension, rear | Independent multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
Steering type | Electric-assist, speed-proportional rack-and-pinion power steering |
Steering ratio (x:1) | 14.8 |
Tire make and model | Firestone Affinity Touring S4 |
Tire type | All-season |
Tire size | P205/65R16 94S |
Wheel size | 16-by-6.5 inches |
Wheel material | Steel |
Brakes, front | 11.6-inch ventilated disc with single-piston sliding caliper |
Brakes, rear | 11.1-inch solid disc with single-piston sliding caliper |
Track Test Results | |
---|---|
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 3.2 |
0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.4 |
0-60 mph (sec.) | 8.4 |
0-75 mph (sec.) | 12.1 |
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 16.1 @ 88.2 |
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 8.0 |
0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 3.2 |
0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 5.5 |
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 8.5 |
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 12.4 |
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) | 16.2 @ 87.2 |
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 8.1 |
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 32 |
60-0 mph (ft.) | 129.0 |
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 61.0 (ESC cannot be disabled above 40 mph) |
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 61.0 |
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.77 |
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.77 |
Sound level @ idle (dB) | 39.5 |
@ Full throttle (dB) | 69.2 |
@ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 62.5 |
Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 2,000 |
Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
---|---|
Acceleration comments | Best run without brake torque, but in Sport mode using auto shifting. Camry has enough power to spin its tires off the line which seems to keep the engine from bogging. No real technique here. |
Braking comments | Very solid, consistent pedal for a car in this class. Stops straight and confidently. |
Handling comments | Skid pad: An exercise in understeer. Low-grip tires, minimal communication, lots of roll. Dynamic apathy at its best. (Note: "ESC off" disables at about 35-40 mph, so stability control can be fully off for skid pad, but not slalom.) Slalom: Camry LE is a very different car dynamically compared to its SE counterpart. Lots of body roll, minimal damping and slow responses make it a handful here. |
Testing Conditions | |
---|---|
Test date | 8/28/2012 |
Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
Temperature (°F) | 81.7 |
Relative humidity (%) | 26.9 |
Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.73 |
Wind (mph, direction) | 0.1, head/crosswind |
Odometer (mi.) | 3,194 |
Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 35/35 |
Fuel Consumption | |
---|---|
EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 25 city/35 highway/28 combined |
Edmunds observed (mpg) | 24.9 (over 317.7 miles) |
Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 17.0 |
Driving range (mi.) | 595 |
Audio and Advanced Technology | |
---|---|
Stereo description | AM/FM/CD stereo with 6.1-inch touchscreen, 6 speakers |
iPod/digital media compatibility | Standard USB and auxiliary inputs |
Satellite radio | Not available |
Hard-drive music storage capacity (Gb) | Not available |
Bluetooth phone connectivity | Standard, includes audio streaming |
Navigation system | Not available |
Smart entry/Start | Not available |
Parking aids | Not available |
Dimensions & Capacities | |
---|---|
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 3,190 |
Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 3,167 |
Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 61.6/38.4 |
Length (in.) | 189.2 |
Width (in.) | 71.7 |
Height (in.) | 57.9 |
Wheelbase (in.) | 109.3 |
Track, front (in.) | 62.4 |
Track, rear (in.) | 62.0 |
Turning circle (ft.) | 36.7 |
Legroom, front (in.) | 41.6 |
Legroom, rear (in.) | 38.9 |
Headroom, front (in.) | 38.8 |
Headroom, rear (in.) | 38.1 |
Shoulder room, front (in.) | 58.0 |
Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 56.6 |
Seating capacity | 5 |
Trunk volume (cu-ft) | 15.4 |
GVWR (lbs.) | 4,630 |
Ground clearance (in.) | 6.1 |
Warranty | |
---|---|
Bumper-to-bumper | 3 years/36,000 miles |
Powertrain | 5 years/60,000 miles |
Corrosion | 5 years/Unlimited miles |
Roadside assistance | 2 years/25,000 miles |
Free scheduled maintenance | 2 years/25,000 miles |
Vehicle | |
---|---|
Model year | 2013 |
Make | Honda |
Model | Accord |
Style | EX 4dr Sedan (2.4L 4cyl CVT) |
Vehicle Type | FWD 4dr 5-passenger Sedan |
Base MSRP | $26,195 |
As-tested MSRP | $26,195 |
Assembly location | Marysville, Ohio |
Drivetrain | |
---|---|
Configuration | Transverse, front-engine, front-wheel drive |
Engine type | Naturally aspirated, direct-injected inline-4, gasoline |
Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 2,354/144 |
Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake-valve timing and lift |
Compression ratio (x:1) | 11.1 |
Redline, indicated (rpm) | 6,800 |
Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 185 @ 6,400 |
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 181 @ 3,900 |
Fuel type | Regular unleaded |
Transmission type | Pulley-regulated continuously variable transmission with console shifter with sport/competition modes |
Transmission ratios (x:1) | 4.123 - 0.631 |
Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 3.238 |
Differential(s) | Open |
Chassis | |
---|---|
Suspension, front | Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, stabilizer bar |
Suspension, rear | Independent multilink, coil springs, stabilizer bar |
Steering type | Electric-assist rack-and-pinion steering |
Steering ratio (x:1) | 13.23 |
Tire make and model | Michelin Primacy MXV4 |
Tire type | All-season front and rear |
Tire size, front | 215/55R17 |
Tire size, rear | 215/55R17 |
Wheel size | 17-by-7.5 inches front and rear |
Wheel material | Aluminum |
Brakes, front | 11.5-inch one-piece ventilated rotors with single-piston sliding calipers |
Brakes, rear | 11.1-inch one-piece rotors with single-piston sliding calipers |
Track Test Results | |
---|---|
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 3.4 |
0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.3 |
0-60 mph (sec.) | 7.8 |
0-75 mph (sec.) | 11.1 |
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 15.8 @ 91.2 |
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.5 |
0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 3.5 |
0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 5.4 |
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 7.9 |
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 11.2 |
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) | 15.8 @ 91.2 |
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.5 |
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 32 |
60-0 mph (ft.) | 128 |
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 65.2 |
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 65.5 |
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.81 |
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.83 |
Sound level @ idle (dB) | 40.2 |
@ Full throttle (dB) | 70.2 |
@ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 62.0 |
Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 2,000 |
Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
---|---|
Acceleration comments | Best launch with no brake torque. Feels weak off the line, but quickly makes the most of the new engine's power. Still, there's typical CVT behavior at WOT. |
Braking comments | Soft pedal. Lots of ABS noise and feedback. Some lateral wander. Not the best in its class in this test, but distance is OK. |
Handling comments | Skid pad: Light steering effort is obvious here, but steering still offers enough feedback to prudently guide the car. Good visibility makes placing it easy. Won't rotate off throttle, but what midsize sedan will? Slalom: Certainly not a sports car, but quite good for the segment. Feels light and changes directions readily. Excellent ESC tuning allows for rapid transitions without punishing driver. |
Testing Conditions | |
---|---|
Test date | 8/28/2012 |
Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
Temperature (°F) | 84.3 |
Relative humidity (%) | 23.7 |
Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.7 |
Wind (mph, direction) | 1.0, Tail/cross |
Odometer (mi.) | 1,377 |
Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 32/32 |
Fuel Consumption | |
---|---|
EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 27 city/36 highway/30 combined |
Edmunds observed (mpg) | 26.3 |
Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 17.2 |
Audio and Advanced Technology | |
---|---|
Stereo description | 160-watt, six speaker AM/FM/CD with WMA/MP3 audio system |
iPod/digital media compatibility | Standard iPod via USB jack, standard aux jack |
Rear seat video and entertainment | Not available |
Bluetooth phone connectivity | Standard |
Smart entry/Start | Standard ignition and doors |
Parking aids | Standard back-up camera |
Blind-spot detection | Standard right-side camera (LaneWatch) |
Dimensions & Capacities | |
---|---|
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 3,192 (LX trim) |
Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 3,320 |
Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 61/39 |
Length (in.) | 191.4 |
Width (in.) | 72.8 |
Height (in.) | 57.7 |
Wheelbase (in.) | 109.3 |
Track, front (in.) | 62.8 |
Track, rear (in.) | 62.7 |
Legroom, front (in.) | 42.5 |
Legroom, rear (in.) | 38.5 |
Headroom, front (in.) | 39.1 |
Headroom, rear (in.) | 37.5 |
Shoulder room, front (in.) | 58.6 |
Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 56.5 |
Seating capacity | 5 |
Trunk volume (cu-ft) | 15.8 |
Warranty | |
---|---|
Bumper-to-bumper | 3 years/36,000 miles |
Powertrain | 5 years/60,000 miles |
Corrosion | 5 years/unlimited mileage |
Roadside assistance | Available for purchase via Honda Care contract |