Honda Cars : AUTOGUIDE: 2013 Toyota Camry vs 2013 Honda Accord | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

By Mike Schlee, April 23 2013. Photos and Video by Stephen Elmer.

If the thought of a Camry versus Accord comparison test doesn’t get your heart racing, we understand. This is not exactly a battle of thoroughbred horses. Want speed, flair and style? Look elsewhere. What we have here, are two vehicles designed for the masses.

Both the Toyota and Honda mid-size sedans are built for people who aren't particularly interested in driving, but who need an easy to drive car, that is spacious, predictable, efficient and reliable. Built more for peoples’ needs than their wants, think of them as the sensible shoes of the automotive world.

Last year three of the top selling six vehicles in America were mid-size sedans with the Camry third overall and the Accord fourth (The only models above them were trucks). The mid-size sedan segment is huge and these two vehicles represented nearly three-quarters of a million vehicle sales last year in America alone. It goes without saying then that the stakes are high. So which is our pick between these two segment leaders?

NEW, BUT NOT DIFFERENT

All new for 2013, at first glance it may not appear that the Honda Accord has changed much since last year. With evolutionary styling not straying far from the 2012, a closer look is need to reveal subtle changes here and there. The LED daytime running lights, dual LED headlights (standard on our EX-L trimmed Accord) and LED taillights all give the Accord a little exterior flash. The rest of the vehicle lines have been sharpened up to give the Accord a fresh, modern look.

Compare Specs

		vs
Vehicle	2013 Honda Accord	Advantage	2013 Toyota Camry
Engine	2.4 L Inline-4	-	2.5 L Inline-4
Transmission	CVT	-	6-Speed Auto
Horsepower	185 hp	Accord	178 hp
Max. Torque	181 lb-ft	Accord	170 lb-ft
Fuel Economy	27 MPG city / 36 MPG hwy	Accord	25 MPG city / 35 MPG hwy
Observed Fuel Economy	25.3 MPG	Accord	23.5 MPG
Weight	3,365 lbs	Camry	3,245 lbs
Front Legroom	42.5 in.	Accord	41.6 in.
Rear Legroom	38.5 in.	Camry	38.9 in.
Cargo Capacity	15.8 cu-ft	Accord	15.4 cu-ft
Front Headroom	37.6 in.	Camry	37.9 in.
Rear Headroom	37.0 in.	Camry	38.0 in.
Starting Price	$22,470	Accord	$23,030
As Tested Price	$30,785	Camry	$28,520

The Camry received its last significant overhaul just last year. Again, it was a case of evolving the styling cues opposed to reinventing the Camry. This is definitely the most dramatic looking Camry to date, but that is not saying much since the Camry has always been more conservative than a one piece bathing suit. The new Camry does feature some nice design cues like the sideways ‘L’ shaped taillights, chrome fog light bezels and sloping front grill. That said, the Accord looks more upscale on the outside and was voted the more stylish vehicle according to our staff.

Both of our test vehicles came equipped as fully loaded four cylinder models. The 2013 Toyota Camry XLE features a 2.5-liter engine producing 178 hp and 170 lb-ft of torque. It sends power to the front wheels through a 6-speed automatic transmission and is officially rated by the EPA at 25 MPG city and 35 MPG highway. The Accord features a similar setup by utilizing a slightly smaller 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine that develops a peppier 184 hp and 181 lb-ft of torque. Power is sent to the front wheels via continuously variable transmission (CVT) and it also offers an edge in the fuel economy department at 27 MPG city and 36 MPG highway.

ENGAGING vs PREDICTABLE

Much has been made about the Accord switching to a CVT from a conventional automatic. The good news is, this is one of the better gear-less units on the market. It is quiet and constantly changing rpm speeds to avoid any of that dreaded CVT drone. Under hard acceleration it will simulate gear changes as well which helps break up the monotonous groaning associated with many CVTs.

Both vehicles offer a sport mode, but only the Toyota features a ‘manual’ mode that allows for driver selectable gearing. Despite a 105 lb. weight advantage, the Camry is not as fast as the Accord in a straight line; a result from slightly more power and the CVT. As well, the Accord achieved better fuel economy during our test period (during the cold winter months) by averaging 25.3 MPG compared to the Camry’s 23.5 MPG average.

Overall, the Accord is the more engaging car to drive of the two. It does excel at throttle response, steering feel and chassis dynamics, but is missing that magical something that makes the Camry feel incredibly easy to drive. The Camry’s ride felt rougher on imperfect pavement and more noise protrudes into the cabin; but that could be due to winter tire choice more than anything else. Overall, the Accord ends up feeling more refined when plodding down the road.

COMFORTABLE vs LUXURIOUS

Inside, the Camry has the upper hand. Although the Accord features a well laid out dashboard design, it cannot match the Camry’s more premium feel. The cross-stitched multi-angled dashboard of the Camry and all the switch gear are crafted out of quality materials.

Both cars feature well thought-out center cluster designs that place all the controls where you would expect them to be. The Camry’s user interface is easier to use, but the Accord’s second infotainment screen, which is dedicated for audio use only, is a nice touch. It is refreshing not having to exit out of various menus just to change the radio station. Speaking of which, the Camry wins the audiophile competition with a nice, bassy sound system.

The Accord was rated as having the better front seats which are wide, squishy and comfortable. Both cars have nearly identical rear seat legroom, but the Accord trumps the Camry’s front seat legroom by roughly an inch with 42.5-inches total. In the trunk it is a similar story with the Accord’s 15.8 cu-ft of cargo space edging out the Camry’s 15.4 cu-ft space.

See Also: 2012 Toyota Camry SE Review

There is a major, albeit curable, downfall in the Accord; the Interface Dial Feedback. If you own a 2013 Accord, best to turn it off. Using a text to speech function it will read out every menu choice and/or radio station selection. If you’re at all quick through the controls it gets so far behind it will freeze the system for 10-15 seconds and lock out any inputs during that time. It is beyond infuriating; how could Honda design such a beautiful gauge cluster, but screw up the text to speech so much?

The base 2013 Honda Accord LX starts at a lower price of $22,470 post-delivery charges thanks to the availability of a 6-speed manual transmission. That under cuts the automatic-only base Toyota Camry L’s post-delivery charge price of $23,030. However, as tested, the Camry becomes the pricing champion with a favourable $28,520 for our loaded up XLE Camry compared to our Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation equipped Accord EX-L which topped out at $30,785.

THE VERDICT

 

Either of these vehicles are a great choice. If refinement, curb appeal and efficiency are important to you, pick the Accord. If a luxurious interior, ease of use and lower MSRP are your top priorities, take the Camry.

However, like with any comparison test, there can only be one winner. Just like the epic sales battle these two vanilla gladiators partake in year after year, it was a very close finish with the edge going to the Accord thanks to better exterior styling, a more comfortable interior and some trick features like the lane watch camera. The fact it's better to drive and more efficient in the real world are just an added bonus.

2013 Honda Accord

LOVE IT Solid driving dynamics Attractive exterior Comfortable interior Fuel efficient

LEAVE IT Interface dial feedback Less premium interior than Camry

2013 Toyota Camry

LOVE IT Easy to operate Luxurious interior Attractive price Well laid out controls

LEAVE IT Bland styling Somewhat rough suspension Not as efficient as Accord Dull to drive

Source;
http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/v/main/comparison/2013ToyotaCamryVS2013HondaAccord/2013-Honda-Accord+_2_.JPG.html

Honda Cars : Autos.ca Comparison: 2013 Honda CRV VS 2013 Toyota Rav4 | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

CRV dash.

Rav4 dash.

CRV rear interior.

Rav4 rear interior.

CRV rear hatch area.

Rav4 rear hatch area.

Review by Jonathan Yarkony, photos by Jeff Wilson and Jonathan Yarkony

After several months in an Autos.ca Long-Term Test, a Test Drive last year and surviving three Comparison Tests (and winning one) we are plenty familiar with Honda’s CR-V. The Toyota RAV4, on the other hand, is new to the market just this spring and both dramatically changes from the previous generation while in some ways returns to its roots.

Both are now exclusively five-seat, four-cylinder, soft-roader crossover SUVs with optional AWD, just as they were when these nameplates were launched in the mid-nineties (okay, the RAV4 had those ridiculous two-door and convertible models, but lets just conveniently ignore those for the sake of symmetry, here). Both are also built in Canada, though that was not as significant a factor in their comparison as the fact that they have consistently battled in the sales charts, fighting for compact SUV shoppers that didn’t opt for the dominant Ford Escape. While the Escape dominates the Canadian compact SUV sales charts, the CR-V topped it in the States with over 280,000 units sold, but this year is trailing both the Escape and RAV4 in Canadian and American sales.

While we aim to have a more extensive comparison with new compact crossover offerings later this summer, we felt that these two have such a similar history and approach that we wanted to see how these traditional rivals (perhaps even ‘icons’ of the crossover breed) stacked up head to head. And despite a slight mismatch in trims, we feel that the essential qualities of each vehicle were present and accounted for, enough so that a fair and relevant evaluation can be conducted even with the varied option selections offering differences in character that serve to highlight the strengths of each vehicle and brand.

Features/Value:
We were able to book an almost identically priced RAV4 during one of the last weeks of the CR-V’s residence, although they were not nearly identically equipped. Our CR-V is essentially a base model LX with one big feature, AWD, added on, taking the price to $28,140, plus a $1,640 destination fee and $100 excise tax for a grand total of $29,880.

The RAV4 we were offered came to $29,905, the difference less than the price of a family meal at Swiss Chalet. However, it arrives at that price over the base $23,790 LE FWD (score a point for Toyota for this low base price) as the $27,000 FWD XLE, $1,170 for the nav system (plus XM satellite radio and voice command), plus $1,635 destination and $100 A/C tax landing it at $29,905. For the equivalent of the CR-V’s base price ($25,990), the RAV4 can be had with AWD.

Feature for feature, Honda at least has a slight edge in base-model equipment with an LCD display screen with radio data, voice command, driver armrest (vs a shared centre console armrest in the RAV4), a compass, heated driver and passenger seats, and a back-up camera. The RAV4 has wheel covers, which the CR-V does not.

However, in this specific comparison, the RAV4 XLE FWD bumps the speaker count to six (from four), adds a sunroof, alloy wheels, dual-zone auto climate, 6.1-inch touchscreen display, heated front seats and premium cloth, cargo cover, variable intermittent wipers and a back-up camera, as well as the aforementioned nav system upgrade that also includes XM satellite radio and voice command. Without going all the way up to XLE trim, you can get the 6 speakers, 6.1-inch touchscreen display, tinted windows, cargo cover and back-up camera as a $1,000 upgrade package on the FWD or AWD LE trim.

Without question, the RAV4 provides more features at a better price.

Design
Interior design is perhaps more subjective than feature counting, but despite Toyota’s efforts to liven up their interiors, they may have missed the mark. While I do like the essence of the layered dash and leather-stitched panel, it actually hides a row of buttons under its lip that made it hard for me to locate and reach the seat-heater switch. Everything in the CR-V is easy to reach and clearly marked, although its basic features meant there was little to control relative to the RAV4’s navigation-equipped and touchscreen-controlled infotainment system.

And then there is the quality of materials.

The RAV4 interior is by no means Lexus quality, but it is clearly better than the CR-V, which is very much an economy car in its simplicity and basic materials.

The CR-V is awash in hard plastics, while the RAV4 is updated with quality materials, although they may have added one material too many in the tacky carbon-fibre-patterned shifter gate. Oh, and having a molded plastic imitation leather stitching on the steering heel hub right next to the genuinely stitched leather dash is just wrong.

My co-tester on evaluation day, Jeff Wilson, was turned off: “CR-V’s interior design is much cleaner and simpler – I greatly prefer it. By comparison, I counted at least ten different materials, colours or textures inside the wildly over-styled RAV4.”

Sometimes, simple is best.

But exterior design is not one of those times. How does the saying go? Fortune favours the bold. The RAV4’s creased and sculpted surfaces are eye-catching and it won Jeff over: “To my eye, the RAV4 is a much more attractive rig than the bulbous, awkward-looking CRV.” While I appreciate some details on the RAV4, particularly the crisp line that wraps around the front fenders, the nose seems too pointy, and the flat ‘shelf’ of the tailgate below the rear window is ungainly (though perhaps aerodynamically functional) and I see nothing to recommend it over the CR-V’s anonymous yet less fussy design. Despite my objections, I’ll concede to the majority as I have heard many others positive comments about the RAV4’s interior and exterior design.

However, one other oddity or oversight of the RAV4’s design is the placement of the tailgate handle right below the rear window – it’s just too high, which makes it harder for anyone, but especially shorter people, to lift the tailgate. Perhaps this is a product of Toyota’s recent switch to the vertical tailgate instead of the side-hinged door, but the CR-V’s handle is conveniently located at the very bottom of the tailgate just above the bumper.

A quick note about safety: The 2013 RAV4 has yet to be rated by the IIHS or NHTSA, but we expect that it will match the CR-V’s Top Safety Pick and Five Star Overall ratings.

So, the RAV4’s design seems to make a better first impression, as does interior quality, but the CR-V is quietly a very smart package without any real marks against except dullness.

Utility
These two cars are incredibly closely matched in size and interior dimensions, so it could be a wash, but it’s not. While the RAV4 is slightly larger in every exterior dimension (but within 50 mm/a couple inches in length, width and wheelbase), the CR-V makes the most of its barely smaller footprint with better interior space in most measurements except front legroom and headroom.

The one dramatic advantage for the CR-V is in rear hip room, 1,349 mm to the RAV4’s 1,242. That 107 mm (over 4 inches) makes a difference. After testing day, I set up both my car seats in each car, and asked my wife to test the middle position. While the CR-V is tight, it is tolerable for short distances. The RAV4 did not even have sufficient space for my wife to squeeze in between the two car seats, and she is smaller than most average North American teenagers. Without car seats, the RAV4 is also a bit tighter, but still functional.

This time around, I finally found a sucker, er, I mean volunteer to perform the car-seat installation test, and this is what Jeff – also the father of a toddler – found: “Slightly easier to locate the LATCH anchor points in the CR-V than in the RAV. Plus there’s no need to remove head rests for installation in the CR-V and the backrest angle lines up for a perfectly flush mount with the car seat. Also, the rear doors of the CR-V open much wider than RAV4’s. This is especially useful for loading and unloading bulky items – like toddlers or their car seats.”

Front seat comfort for parents was good in both, but I personally preferred the softer texture of the CR-V seat fabric, and Jeff points out that the well-positioned driver’s seat armrest in the CR-V makes long distance driving more relaxed and comfortable.

The cargo areas are within 100 L of each other with seats up or down, with the RAV4 slightly more accommodating, not only in measurement but also in my “Canadian dad cargo test”. In the pictures with my hockey bag and our son’s stroller, note how the stroller had room to lie flat in the RAV4, where we have to turn it on its side in the CR-V. The RAV4 also has a cargo cover for those looking to hide their goods from prying eyes, and the floor is flush with the plastic trim above the bumper, where the CR-V has a lip, making it easier to slide heavy objects into the RAV4. However, the CR-V counters with the useful ability to drop the rear seats from the back cargo area (RAV4 requires going to each rear door opening and accessing a lever at the top of the seatback to do so).

Still the RAV4’s slightly larger cargo area isn’t enough to outweigh the more accommodating and flexible CR-V interior.

Ride
With these two vehicles in our possession, we took the opportunity to get away from the urban and suburban confines of our usual test loop and headed north, aiming for cottage country. Between gas stops, a quick wash (yes, believe it or not we washed the cars, as fruitless as that was since it started snowing and kicking up slush the minute we left the car wash), and photography, we only made about halfway to our intended destination before hitting our cutoff time. Still, we meandered through the suburban outskirts of the GTA, then traversed some horribly maintained country highways, and even found a steep gravel sideroad with a fair dusting of snow.

Out here, we had a chance to pick apart the ride of these two vehicles, and this provided one of the biggest surprises. The RAV4 was rough. The suspension was simply too firm, leading to a jittery ride, and brakes that seemed a touch grabby. Yes, the steering was sharp and the responsiveness was good, but it did not come off as sporty, just rough and twitchy. It’s like Toyota has forgotten all about the gazillions of customers who have flocked to it for that pleasant, novocaine ride and aimed to please a few overeager enthusiasts. Granted, it is better overall than the previous generation, which seemed completely lost whenever making a turn, but this seems to have taken the sportiness need too far, even going so far as to offering a ‘Sport’ button to remap transmission and throttle – I doubt that will really appease all those V6 loyalists Toyota claimed with the last RAV4.

The CR-V was a complete softy and absorbed washboard roads with minimal fuss in the cabin aside from a generous serving of noise. Everywhere else, the CR-V demonstrated supreme comfort without feeling sloppy in the corners. To go back to our first Crossover Comparison Test, in which the CR-V proved victorious, “The nearly perfect ride balance between comfort and sport is unexpected in this class of vehicle and the steering wheel sends a surprising amount of feedback to the driver.” 

And when arriving at your destination, both have a reasonable turning circle (though the RAV4’s is slightly better), and both were equipped with back-up cameras in this test, with reasonable visibility out of the side windows and the same restrictive D-pillars to work around. No real advantage here.

Almost everything about driving the CR-V feels just right, while the RAV4 seems to have confused firmness with sport. And, of course, with Honda having spent its upgrade budget on AWD, it also offered superior traction in slippery conditions (hey, if the RAV4 gets points for all its features, the CR-V deserves a nod here). We don’t doubt that the RAV4 would have equaled the CR-V for traction capability if so equipped, and even in FWD configuration, still pulled away smartly after traction control took over and meted out appropriate engine and wheel braking, further convincing me I have no need for AWD. Others may feel differently. Suit yourself.

Powertrain
Now that both the RAV4 and CR-V are on an even footing offering exclusively inline-fours, we knew this powertrain category was going to be one of the most closely contested. Could the CR-V’s 2.4L 185 hp edge out the RAV4’s 2.5L I4 making 176 hp? The RAV4 answers back with 172 lb-ft of torque and a six-speed automatic transmission with manual and sport modes to the CR-V’s 163 lb-ft and five-speed automatic.

In the brute strength department, there is little question that the RAV4 feels stronger, and making its peak torque and horsepower at lower engine speeds means it has more guts just dawdling around, and its 1,560 kg in XLE FWD trim is virtually equal to the AWD CR-V (1,554 kg). However, that is about where the advantage ends.

Both buzz irritatingly when you wind them up, both lack meaningful power, and anyone looking for such power will need to step up to a competitor with a turbo-four or V6, or be prepared to be patient when accelerating. I would classify this level of power saddled with this weight as enough, just barely. Once up to speed, of course, they are entirely adequate for moving the cars along briskly, even at GTA 400-series highway speeds.

However, we were well out of the city on 60-, 70-, and 80-limit roads, and when driving varied terrain at speeds between 60 and 110 km/h, the RAV4 was consistently confused about gear would best serve. Gradual inclines at 70 resulted in double downshifts, and yet firm prods of the pedal for passing were slow to provoke a gear change. As much as having six speeds seems a good idea on paper, the Honda five-speed was the better, smoother transmission, unless you are the rare individual that actually uses the manual mode (shifter controlled) when cruising around. 

Overall, the CR-V just felt subtly better and more natural driving down the road, the engine a little more subdued and refined, the engine, transmission, suspension and all-wheel traction working together in mechanical harmony, or perhaps simply resonating with both of us.

Fuel Efficiency
But before we conclude this comparison, we must report on fuel consumption. According to the Natural Resources Canada testing method, the Toyota RAV4 FWD is capable of 8.7 L/100 km in the city, 6.4 on the highway and 7.7 combined; factor in AWD, and it climbs to 9.1/6.8/8.0. The US EPA method suggests 9.8/7.6/9.0 for FWD and 10.7/8.1/9.4 for AWD.

The Honda CR-V, on the Canadian cycle, in LX AWD trim as equipped, is estimated at 9.2/6.6/8.0, while a more efficient FWD drivetrain would earn 9.0/6.4/7.8. US estimates peg it at 10.2/7.6/9.0 for FWD and 10.7/7.8/9.4.

These are all close enough that they will amount to a hill of beans compared to how you drive your car. Driving these two cars on the same route, at essentially the same pace and swapping drivers periodically gave us readings of 9.1 L/100 km for the FWD, six-speed automatic RAV4, while the five-speed AWD CR-V narrowly beat it, coming in at 8.9 L/100 km. 

After keeping both cars for the remainder of the week and following similar use, the gap remained with the RAV4 finishing at 9.5 and the CR-V at 9.3 (as it did over the course of an entire long-term test). On paper, this is a win for the Honda, though in reality, you wouldn’t be saving enough to buy a latte at every fill-up, and both use regular gas, so no penalties there.

But don’t trust us; a quick check of Fuelly shows that 2013 CR-V owners are managing an average of 8.9, while RAV4 users are averaging 9.4 (though this is a decidedly smaller sample group).

Conclusion
We already knew the CR-V was good going into this comparison. The previous generation RAV4 offered much value, flexibility and power, but the driving experience was questionable and between quality of materials and design, left us cold.

There is no question that this new RAV4 is better in every way, except power, with standout but polarizing looks, a fascinating interior design, and even better value and efficiency than the previous generation.

Despite interior quality that needs addressing, and somewhat plain looks, the CR-V has a thoughtful and appealing interior that shows a mastery of packaging and functionality, fulfills all the necessities that people look for in this segment, offers a near-perfect compromise of on-road manners, sufficient power, and incredible ease of use. It is by no means the features or value leader, but if you’re turned off by the higher price of entry, just remember the back-up camera and heated seats – usually cost options or part of a higher priced package.

I’ll let Jeff back me up so you don’t think it’s just because I’ve spent the past three months getting used to the CR-V:

“I would happily forgo the toys and gizmos the XLE trim provides for the driving experience of the CR-V with its AWD capabilities. Under microscopic scrutiny, the sum of all the little details simply make the CR-V more practical and enjoyable to live with day to day and is my preference of the two.”

While I myself am not so quick to dismiss the value and features of the RAV4 – I would opt for the alloy wheels and upgraded stereo of the CR-V EX over the AWD LX – the ride comfort and more refined driving experience, not to mention the more practical rear seat would also have me choose the Honda CR-V for my family. I guess that makes it unanimous: Honda CR-V is back on top again.

Pricing: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
Base Price (XLE FWD): $27,000
Options: $1,170 (Navigation)
Freight & PDI: $1,635
A/C Tax: $100
Total: $29,905

Pricing: 2013 Honda CR-V LX AWD
Base Price (LX AWD): $28,140
Options: none
Freight & PDI: $1,640
A/C Tax: $100
Total: $29,880

Competitors
Chevrolet Equinox
Ford Escape
GMC Terrain
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Sportage
Mazda CX-5
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan Rogue
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Source;
http://www.autos.ca/car-comparisons/comparison-test-2013-honda-cr-v-lx-awd-vs-2013-toyota-rav4-xle-fwd

Honda Cars : AutoGuide: 2013 Honda FIT VS 2013 Toyota Yaris | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Comparing the smallest cars from two Japanese juggernauts

By , Feb. 27, 2013

By Stephen Elmer, Feb. 26, 2013 Photography by Stephen Elmer, Honda and Toyota
Between the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris exists a difference of about seven inches in total length, a significant amount, especially when it comes to sub-compacts. So in a comparison of the two it raises the question, does the Yaris make up for its lack of length with other attributes, or does the Fit’s size render it a more useful small car?

FAST FACTS

1. The Honda Fit is powered by a 1.5-liter Four-cylinder engine that makes 117 hp and 106 lb-ft of torque 2. Fuel economy is rated at 28/35/31 city/highway/combined 3. 2013 Honda Fits start at $15,425 before delivery

AN EXTRA GEAR MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Well, the storyline that exists between these two starts with the powertrains. Both cars run small four-cylinder engines, with the Fit’s plant making 117 hp at 6600 RPM and 106 lb-ft of torque at 4800 RPM, while the Yaris just lags behind with 106 hp and 103 lb-ft of torque, made at 6000 RPM and 4200 RPM. With automatic transmissions, the Fit has a one-cog advantage over the Yaris, with an old four-speed – though both are rather outdated in a world of six-speed autos. Around town the two engines feel about the same at take off, though on the highway cruising speeds the Fit has more get up and go than the Yaris.

At it’s base level the Yaris is offered with a five-speed manual, just like the Fit. With that five-speed box, the little Toyota would likely feel much more suited to the Fit power wise, especially considering it weighs in about 200 lbs. less than the Honda. The five-speed manual in the Yaris is definitely the transmission to get, as having only four speeds leads to unnatural driving feel and poor fuel economy. 

FAST FACTS

1. The Toyota Yaris is powered by a 1.5-liter Four-cylinder engine that makes 106 hp and 103 lb-ft of torque 2. Fuel economy is rated at 30/35/31 city/highway/combined 3. 2013 Toyota Yaris starts at $14,115 before delivery

AND THE FUEL ECONOMY CHAMPION IS…

With a manual transmission, the Fit gets an EPA rating of 27/33/29 city/highway/combined, while with the automatic it improves slightly to 28/35/31. The Yaris tells a different story with better numbers all around. The manual transmission is rated at 30/38/33, while the automatic edges out the Honda with 30/35/32.
In real world testing, the automatic Fit proved the EPA right, with an overall rating of 32 mpg after a week of mixed driving, while the automatic Yaris disappointed with an average 29 mpg. Again, that five-speed manual in the Yaris seems to be the ticket to better fuel economy as well, as the four-speed auto is simply dated, and in bad need of an update.

ROOM: FOR PASSENGERS AND CARGO

So the Honda Fit manages better fuel economy, a more engaging engine, and an extra seven inches that feels like a lot more, especially when you have whiny back seat passengers. Honda offers 34.5 inches of rear-seat legroom, while the Yaris stays close behind offering 33.3 inches for rear-seat passengers. While passenger room is almost equal, total storage space falls in favor of the Fit, with an expansive 57.3 cubic feet of total cargo volume available with the seats folded down.

In the Fit, you can quickly forget about the size of the vehicle, because of the clever use of space. There is flat surfaces on the dash for holding things, two center cup holders, along with small cubbies fitted for both the passenger and driver on the outside of the dash mounted vents. In the rear, the seat bottoms fold up for easy access to a flat floor, which also reveals yet another glovebox-like storage spot in the bottom of the seats.

As for interior quality, both of these subcompacts keep it simple and affordable, as both are laden with black and grey plastics, cloth seats and hard-touch surfaces, though neither one nor the other seems more lavish. Intelligent use of space in the Fit helps to make a small car feel bigger, whereas the simplicity of the Yaris keeps a small car feeling small.

As a straight no frills kind of car, the Yaris has nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to storing your items. There’s a glove box, cupholders, a small cargo spot between the front two seats, and there are door pockets; just the necessities and nothing more. So with the Fit pulling ahead in fuel economy, engine responsiveness and storage, does its plus size hinder its driving feel?

BEHIND THE WHEEL

In short, no. With a much tighter steering feel which helps the car cut in hard on turn-in, the Fit can be decent amount of fun to thrash around, where as the Yaris always feels like plain white toast bread no matter how much acceleration and driving skill you spread on it.

Of note, the Yaris (at least in base trim with the manual transmission) does offer a tighter turning circle than the Fit. Unfortunately, when fitted with larger wheels and tires in a higher-trim version that’s no longer the case.
[vs-comparsion-table]
It would seem that the Fit is the clear winner in every category, though it will hit you a little harder at the bank. Based on the fuel economy, better turning radius and more responsive engine, the base-model manual transmission equipped Yaris is the car to get, and it comes in at $14,115, more than $1,000 cheaper than the Fit’s base price of $15,425.  A top spec Yaris still saves you money, pricing out at $17,100 compared to the Fit’s top trim price of $19,790.

THE VERDICT

While the Yaris remains the budget option, the Fit is both more useful and more fun. Both vehicles have something going for them, and both come from automakers with great reputations for reliability, but at the end of the day, the Honda Fit comes out on top as the better choice despite the small premium you will pay for it.

Source;

http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2013-toyota-yaris-vs-2013-honda-fit-2453.htm

Honda Cars : Inside Line: 2013 Honda Accord vs. 2012 Toyota Camry Comparison Test | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Admit It. You Love This Rivalry

By Erin Riches, Senior Editor | Published Sep 12, 2012

 
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.

Handling still matters in a front-drive midsize sedan. A well-damped ride will keep you from dozing off mid-commute.

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.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/accord/2013/2013-honda-accord-vs-2012-toyota-camry-comparison-test.html

Honda Cars : Inside Line: Comparison Test: 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid vs. 2011 Toyota Prius Five | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Here's a really good article featuring two really good hybrids....

The New and Improved Honda Takes on the Undisputed King of Hybrids

By Mike Magrath, Features Editor Published Aug 26, 2011

As an only child, I missed some valuable life lessons. Sharing for example. Group dynamics are confusing, too. And finally, my last character flaw as influenced by my parents' halted procreation, to me compromise is a dirty, dirty word.

But, with each new phase in life, the C-word becomes more prominent. Bless those who can drive their caged Miatas, track-ready BMWs or cherry-bombed Corvettes on a daily basis. For the rest of us, though, a balance must be struck. Rear seats, fuel economy and tolerable in-cabin decibel levels become priorities and all of a sudden, a hybrid starts looking like a good idea.

Two of the best hybrids available right now are the 2011 Toyota Prius and the all-new 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid. They have four doors, reasonable cargo space, affordable prices and big-time fuel economy numbers. Each one has its own compromises, so we set out to find which car we found more tolerable, or maybe even likable.

One Old, One New

The 2011 Toyota Prius is, mechanically, the same car we've seen before. It features a pair of electric motors and a 27 kW nickel-metal hydride battery pack that provides a 36-horsepower shove for the electric half of the equation. A 98-hp 1.8-liter Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder represents the conventional internal-combustion half. A planetary-type continuously variable transmission (CVT) figures out how to get the power to the front wheels. It's a respectable system that transitions smoothly between electric and full-blown hybrid mode.

The Honda Civic Hybrid, on the other hand, utilizes a 1.5-liter four-cylinder gas engine and newer 20kW lithium-ion batteries, which have a higher energy density than nickel-metal hydride batteries. The electric motor in the Civic Hybrid is parked between the CVT and the car's conventional engine. This means that any time the motor spins, the engine spins and vice-versa. Honda calls this system IMA for Integrated Motor Assist. Unlike with the Prius, there's no pure electric drive, but there is some engineless coasting available at certain constant speeds. In the Civic, if the engine can be off without ruining the ride quality, it will be off thanks to the car's automatic start/stop functionality and active Eco mode.

Because You Deserve It

There was already enough sacrifice going on in a test of two hybrids, so we skipped over the base model cars ($22,120 for the Prius One and $24,050 for the Honda Civic Hybrid) and went straight to the top. Our 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid with leather and navigation carried a sticker price of $27,500, which includes heated leather seats, navigation, Bluetooth, a tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel, 15-inch alloy wheels, automatic headlights and steering-wheel-mounted audio controls.

The top tier of Priusdom is the Prius Five. (Do not confuse this with the Prius V.) For the privilege of being the most pampered, you get to shell out $29,080. And that's before options. We'd skip the $5,080 Advanced Technology package seen here (nav, dynamic cruise, pre-collision, advanced parking system, lane keeping assist) and opt for the $2,380 nav system instead. That move would lower the Prius from our MSRP of $34,719 to a more reasonable $32,489.

With all of this trimming, it's easy to forget that these cars start out as relatively inexpensive compacts. But beyond the leather, beyond the multimedia information screens and beyond the atypical powertrains, the way these cars drive makes you forget their natural station in life.

On the Road

With a steeply raked windscreen, thin pillars and a low dash afforded by the centrally mounted everything, the Prius feels twice as big as it is — in a good way. There's no small-car intimidation factor. Perhaps this explains the way Prius drivers try to own the road.

The ride, too, mimics that of a large car, with minimal noise and harshness and a tendency to rebound a fairly impressive sine wave after severe impacts. And, like any decent large car, the Prius' steering and brakes are unobtrusive to the point of being annoying. The steering is weightier than that of previous Prii, but this is a result of reprogrammed steering electrons and not a revised, improved connection to the wheels.

On the Road

With a steeply raked windscreen, thin pillars and a low dash afforded by the centrally mounted everything, the Prius feels twice as big as it is — in a good way. There's no small-car intimidation factor. Perhaps this explains the way Prius drivers try to own the road. The ride, too, mimics that of a large car, with minimal noise and harshness and a tendency to rebound a fairly impressive sine wave after severe impacts. And, like any decent large car, the Prius' steering and brakes are unobtrusive to the point of being annoying. The steering is weightier than that of previous Prii, but this is a result of reprogrammed steering electrons and not a revised, improved connection to the wheels.

The real surprise in this test was the ride quality of the 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid. It's good enough to ignore the painfully slow 0-30 time and the confused start/stop system that gets behind itself in slow traffic. It's good enough that every editor who had it came back with pretty much the same impression: "Dude, the ride."

It's an enviably good mix of damping and spring rates that results in a ride that isn't floaty or harsh. And despite its compliance over rough pavement, when the road gets bendy, the Civic Hybrid sets firmly without the body roll you'd expect from a hybrid. It is still a Civic after all. You'll never confuse this for a large car ride, yet you'll wonder why everyone talks up those big cars so much anyway.

We've had experiences with light cars where a few hundred pounds of gear really makes for a marked improvement in ride quality, and we think that's what's happening here, as the non-hybrid 2012 Civic wasn't this impressive. As impressive as the ride is, the Civic does suffer from higher levels of in-cabin noise than the Prius. From wind noise to tire noise to the crude stutter of the engine firing back to life, there's little peace found inside the Civic.

Because Driving for Fuel Economy Is Boring

Before we donned our fuel-saving caps and glass-soled shoes, we had one last foray into the world we know best: the test track.

It feels wrong, but throttling the 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid on a closed track actually sounds right. It sounds normal. Like a Honda. Of course, it also comes to a stop like a Honda.

Digging into the pavement from 60 mph, the 2,830-pound Civic managed to stop in a barely-Dodge-Power Wagon-beating 137 feet. Blame rear drums. Blame low-rolling-resistance Bridgestone Ecopia EP20 tires. Blame whom or whatever you want, the effect is a braking system that instills no driver confidence.

If you are presented with enough room to hold down the throttle without having to worry about any sort of emergency stop at the other end, the Civic Hybrid hits 60 in 10.1 seconds (9.7 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and goes on to complete the quarter-mile in 17.5 seconds at 80.1 mph.

The Prius lacked both the Civic's drama in braking and its familiar-if-not-pleasant engine note. Thanks to the slick CVT, the Prius' engine droned for 10.2 seconds when we hit 60 mph (9.8 seconds with rollout) and then for another 17.4 seconds as we ran the quarter-mile at 79.3 mph. When asked to stop from 60, the 3,138-pound Prius dug in and clawed out a perfectly standard 124-foot stop.

Things continued to be a relative tie in our handling tests. Despite the Prius being the poster child of terrible dynamics and the Civic's legacy as the real driver's economy car, the numbers were remarkably similar. The Toyota squealed around our skid pad at 0.79g while the Civic pulled 0.76g. The Toyota finished the slalom averaging 61.2 mph, behind the Civic's 62.8 mph.

And because this is that kind of test, the Honda recorded 20 mpg during track testing and the Prius flattened it with a whopping 24 mpg.

Because Gas Is Expensive

The first thing you should know about this portion of our journey is that we did not do a fuel economy loop. Fuel economy loops are designed to simulate some ideal mix of traffic-free, low-and-medium-speed events with few stops, little incline and a slew of otherwise idealistic environments. They've got as much to do with real-world driving as a strip club does with dating. Sure, it's a neat benchmark, but you can't get disappointed when the real world doesn't quite live up to it.

Could we have squeezed out more — potentially double — the miles per gallon by ignoring the flow of traffic, side-stepping hills and swapping our work schedules to reduce the chance of seeing another car? Sure. But we could do that with our current vehicles. The draw of a hybrid is that you don't have to change your behavior to improve your environmental impact.

So we picked editors with different commutes — heavy city traffic, light off-hours highway traffic and a near 50:50 mix of city and highway — and let them have at it with the charge that they're to drive as if their own dollars are on the line.

So we drove these two hybrids like we owned them and tabulated the results.

In our unstandardized, unstaged, real-world tests, the Toyota Prius fell below its 51 city/48 highway/50 combined EPA mpg estimate. We averaged just 39.8 mpg, with a best tank of 45.8 mpg and a worst tank of 34.9 mpg. The worst tank was a result of a long drive on a very empty freeway.

The Civic is rated by the EPA at 44 mpg. Everywhere. City: 44. Highway: 44. Combined? Yep, you guessed it. 44. And unlike the Prius, we managed to catch a glimpse of the elusive EPA number with one 44.8 mpg trek. Overall, though, we only squeezed 38.8 mpg out of the Civic Hybrid.

A 1 mile-per-gallon difference in the real world? Slight advantage to the Prius.

Because in Every Compromise, There's a LoserWe know why people buy hybrids. Be it carpool stickers or fitting in at the local Starbucks, there's an external motivator in the purchase that no math can dent.

Though it has a slight edge in ride quality, the 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid — with its normal dash, conventional shifter, traditional engine note and Civic-like driving dynamics — is almost too normal. It doesn't look special, it doesn't feel special and the IMA system compromises practicality and drivetrain smoothness. Each time the engine jumps back to life, hooking up to the transmission with the subtleness of a first-time clutch user, the compromises of a mixed drivetrain smack you square in the face.

The 2011 Toyota Prius was designed as a hybrid with a unique, instantly recognizable shape that emphasizes function over form and a drivetrain that channels the flow of power as seamlessly as runoff trickles into the Mississippi.

There are times to rebel, to swim against the school, and then there are times to fall in line. The easier compromise here is the car that makes you forget what real cars are like, that coddles and amuses as it delivers superlative fuel economy. In this case, that would be the Toyota Prius.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Source;

http://www.insideline.com/toyota/prius/2011/comparison-test-2012-honda-civic-hybrid-vs-2011-toyota-prius-five.html

Honda Cars : Toyota Prius cedes Japan car market leadership to Honda Fit in Jan. | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius hybrid surrendered its leadership in Japan's passenger car market in January for the first time in 20 months, with Honda Motor Co.'s subcompact Fit likely to capture the top slot, industry sources said Tuesday.

Overall vehicle sales in January, excluding minivehicles with engines of up to 660 cc, tumbled 21.5 percent from a year earlier to 187,154 units, falling for the fifth consecutive month, the Japan Automobile Dealers Association said the same day.

While sales of the Prius began falling year on year after the government subsidy program to promote eco-friendly car purchases ended in September, Fit sales have been robust due to the launch in October of a hybrid model with a starting price of 1.59 million yen, the most inexpensive in Japan among vehicles powered by electric motors and gasoline.

The sales rankings do not include minicars, but the Fit is likely to have become the front-runner in January for the first time since December 2007 even if minivehicle data are included, the sources said.

In January, Fit sales totaled about 15,000 units, up around 10 percent from a year earlier, with Prius sales at some 14,000 units, down an estimated 40 percent, according to the sources.
The Prius apparently lost some of its potential buyers to Toyota's all-new, fuel-efficient Vitz subcompact, which hit the market in December.

Among best-selling minivehicles, Daihatsu Motor Co.'s Move and Tanto sold some 9,000 units each between Jan. 1 and 28, and Suzuki Motor Corp.'s WagonR about 8,000 units, according to the sources.

The official sales rankings data are due to be released by the Japan Automobile Dealers Association and the Japan Mini Vehicles Association on Friday.

In January, passenger car sales excluding minicars dived 23.8 percent from a year earlier to 167,574 units. Cargo vehicle sales climbed 7.5 percent to 18,863 units, while bus sales tumbled 25.5 percent to 717 vehicles.

Source;
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/business/news/20110201p2g00m0bu085000c.html

Honda Cars : Car Advice: Honda Insight VTi-L v Toyota Prius: hybrid car comparison | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Here is probably the most comprehensive comparison between these two Hybrids that I've ever seen....
http://www.caradvice.com.au/96626/honda-insight-vti-l-vs-toyota-prius-hybrid-comparison/

Conclusion

The 2011 Honda Insight VTi-L is the car for you if:
-You want a safe compact car with an impressive standard features list
-You don’t have a burning desire to drive in fully electric mode
-You think you’ll get a kick out of driving efficiently and growing digital dashboard trees
-You want to pay for the vehicle now and are not considering financing it

The 2011 Toyota Prius is the car for you if:
-You have fuel efficiency and low emissions among your top priorities
-You would prefer a little extra space and performance
-You can live without satellite navigation, a USB port and other practical gadgets
-You are planning to finance it

Honda Cars : 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite vs. 2011 Toyota Sienna XLE Comparison Test | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Excellent comparison done by Inside Line, I included the final part of the artical....


Crowning the Ultimate Minivan
Though they have different personalities, the 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite and 2011 Toyota Sienna XLE both offer smart, relevant designs in packages that go a long way toward accommodating every possible desire of the modern family. There isn't another vehicle class that's so singularly focused on the very details that make it perfect for the target customer.

Sure, some say the 2011 Honda Odyssey looks like a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer. Others criticize its beltline hitch and not-so-subtle door-slider track, but whether you're talking about seating configuration or slalom performance, the Honda Odyssey Touring Elite is the ultimate minivan of 2011.

Sienna detractors might say it looks like a hospital gurney with a satin sheet thrown over it, and that it handles like a gurney to boot. However, if you're looking for an extremely low-impact, smooth and quiet minivan (or one with a four-cylinder engine or all-wheel drive), there's good reason to consider a 2011 Toyota Sienna.

The Odyssey Touring Elite is the better overall value, though, as its boatload of features easily offsets its price disadvantage versus the Toyota Sienna XLE. Moreover, the Honda's road manners will win the heart of any car-guy-turned-family-man. Forget crossovers. The 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite is the closest thing there is to an eight-passenger sport sedan.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/odyssey/2011/2011-honda-odyssey-touring-elite-vs-2011-toyota-sienna-xle-comparison-test.html

Honda Cars : 2011 Honda Odyssey VS 2011 Toyota Sienna | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Here's a quick review on two really good vans....

Honda Cars : 2011 Toyota Sienna vs. 2010 Honda Odyssey Minivan Comparison | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Here's a really good read comparing the brand new redesigned Toyota Sienna and the current (and about to be redesigned) Honda Odyssey, don't forget when reading this comparo, the Honda Odyssey hasn't really changed since 2005! - It's remarkable how well it still stacks up to the 2011 Sienna! Both are really nice vans....
Style and stigma be damned, this is a minivan test. A test of utility and usability. A test of family hauling and cargo carrying. A test where practicality overshadows pride. Specifically, it's a comparison test of the 2011 Toyota Sienna and 2010 Honda Odyssey, both vying to be recognized as the warrior queen of the minivan segment. And it's a test any real man should read with honor.

Though the minivan is an unpretentious standard of reference in family haulers, it is still the most practical vehicle in this role. Easier to drive than an SUV or a crossover, a minivan will not only carry more kids and cargo but also shame SUV-style competitors at the gas pump. Equipped with a reasonably powerful V6 engine, the minivan even offers a modest, although useful, towing capacity. Love them or hate them, there's no arguing with the minivan's cost/benefit ratio. Real men will acknowledge this, social stigma or not.

Both the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey have been winners in our previous Inside Line minivan comparison tests. The current-generation Odyssey has prevailed in these comparisons for more than three years, although this five-year-old design from Honda is due for replacement next year. Meanwhile, the fully redesigned 2011 Toyota Sienna has come to the market with a barrage of features, a new transmission and a kickass, take-no-prisoners attitude. OK, we fabricated that last bit to keep the men reading, but even a glance at the new Sienna makes it obvious that Toyota has Honda directly in its sights.

Sorting out which of these minivans is best is the role of our scoring system, which weights the final result according to price (20 percent), fuel consumption (15 percent), feature content (25 percent), a 29-point evaluation by the editors (20 percent), performance (15 percent) and finally editorial preference (5 percent).

The Players
Both vans in this test are top-of-the-line, front-wheel-drive examples. This 2010 Honda Odyssey is a Touring model, which comes with standard equipment that includes eight-passenger seating, leather seat upholstery, a navigation system, a premium audio system, rear-seat entertainment and much, much more. It also comes with an as-tested price of $41,465.

The list of standard equipment in the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited is more impressive. Among its features are 18-inch tires, keyless ignition/entry, a JBL 10-speaker premium audio system and Toyota's Safety Connect telematics. This particular Limited also came with the $1,800 Limited Convenience package, which adds rain-sensing wipers and high-intensity-discharge headlamps. It includes the $890 Advanced Technology package, which brings adaptive cruise control, a pre-collision preparedness system and hill-assist control. These amenities raise the Sienna's as-tested price to $41,990, some $525 more than the Odyssey. But from a price standpoint this is a fair fight.

In truth, both these vans are as laden with features as most luxury cars. In fact, each carries such a comprehensive list of features that we found it difficult to differentiate one from the other. For example, the list of features common to both includes such elaborate convenience items as triple-zone climate control, power liftgate, back-up camera and sensors, multiadjustable power seats with memory and hands-free Bluetooth connectivity.

By the Numbers
When it comes to the shadow these two eight-passenger vehicles cast on the pavement, the dimensional differences don't make much of a difference. Surprisingly, the older 2010 Honda Odyssey is the longer overall of the two by 1.9 inches (and here we thought all new cars were getting bigger). When it comes to wheelbase, however, the Sienna's 119.3-inch measurement exceeds the Odyssey's 118.1 inches. And even though it has more features, the Sienna weighs less than the Odyssey, some 4,586 pounds versus 4,612 pounds.

Not that anyone who buys one will care too much, but both the Odyssey and Sienna are powered by a 3.5-liter V6 engine. Honda rates its power plant at 244 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 245 pound-feet of torque at 4,900 rpm, and the Odyssey utilizes a five-speed automatic transmission to put that power to the ground. The Sienna's V6 (a four cylinder is optional) cranks out more power than the Honda with 265 hp at 6,200 rpm and 245 lb-ft of torque at 4,700 rpm. A new six-speed automatic with a manual-shift feature is standard for the Sienna.

The Seating ShowdownHere's where this test is won or lost. It's in these details that the soccer moms of the world decide the fate of the minivan. And it's here where the aging Honda still holds its own.


Largely, this is because the Odyssey's interior design has so much space-efficiency and practicality that its utility hasn't been surpassed by any important advances in vehicle architecture. Eight-passenger seating capacity isn't unique to the Odyssey (the Sienna offers it as an option), yet we've found that it offers a small but useful margin of utility for occasional duty. The center seat in the second row is small, but it quickly transforms into a center console with cupholders or can be removed to make pass-through space between the seats.

The 2010 Honda Odyssey's lightweight, simple-to-remove second-row seats also offer a measure of utility unavailable in the Sienna Limited. With the center seat/console removed, they can slide together to improve ease of access to the third row through the passenger-side door. They weigh 62 pounds each and can be removed by anybody with a reasonably strong back.

In contrast, the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited comes standard with second-row "lounge seating," which means that its two second-row seats are reclining captain's chairs with footrests that extend. These recliners were comfortable, but you have to be the right size, and any of our editors taller than 5-foot-9 disdained them. If you're a little too big, then you find your shoes resting against the front seatbacks, and if you're really big, your feet just won't fit anywhere at all.

Still, the Sienna's seats are mounted on sliders in the floor, so they can be moved very far forward to provide easy access to the third row. At the same time, we found that doing so requires so much effort that it probably can't be done by a child. These seats also weigh 76 pounds each — enough to probably preclude their removal unless you're desperate.

B-List SeatingThe third-row seats in both the Odyssey and Sienna vans are split 60/40 and fold flat into the floor. When the seats were deployed, we found the Sienna's third-row legroom more accommodating than the Odyssey partially because its second-row seats have a long range of fore/aft adjustability and partially because there's simply more space.

Folding these third-row seats into the floor is a very different procedure in each of these vans. In the Odyssey the act requires a two-handed reach-and-pull technique and significant effort. Even an average-size male has to lean far into the van and pull the seats upright, which is a bit of a balancing act. Still, only about 4 seconds are required to drop one side of the seat into the floor.

The Sienna's power-operated third row deploys in 18 seconds, although you have to reach up to the top of the hatch where the button is and then hold it down. It takes just 11 seconds to stow one side of the split seat, and double that time or use both hands if you want both sides stowed. Anyone dealing with children will likely prefer this power-operated feature over the Honda's manual operation, so score one for Toyota.

Other back-of-the van observations? Both the Odyssey and the Sienna have a power-operated hatch that opens in about 7 seconds and closes in about 10 seconds, both have 12-volt outlets in the rear cargo area and both offer six grocery bag hooks in the seat-well cargo hold.

Practical Matters
If you don't like beeps, then stay as far from the 2011 Toyota Sienna as possible. It beeps any time a power-operated door is opened or closed. It beeps when the seats are stowed or deployed. And it beeps should its driver dare to maneuver remotely near anything while parking. There's also a delay when you remotely open its side and hatch doors, as if it's asking, "Are you sure?" We were sure every time.

Meanwhile, the Sienna's modern interior design is welcome. Large, easy-to-read and intuitively arranged buttons scored points over the Odyssey's older design.
Both vans offer an immense amount of interior storage. The Odyssey's dual door pockets seem like an ideal design in a vehicle with such vast interior space and the possibility of carrying so many people and their stuff. The Odyssey also scores for its storage bin in the second-row footwell, a concealed compartment that can keep large items (like a purse) out of sight. But the Sienna fought back with massive glovebox space, something the Odyssey lacks.

By virtue of an exterior design that has a lower waistline, the 2010 Honda Odyssey offers better visibility front and rear. Its materials look slightly dated, but they compare well with the Toyota Limited's use of fake wood trim. We doubt it's a coincidence that the small fitment defects we saw in this pre-production Sienna were the same as those we've seen in production Toyotas.

Behind the WheelToyota has changed its approach to ride quality in the Sienna compared to the other family-oriented vehicles in its product lineup. It doesn't float down the highway and instead stays settled on the road, and the result inspires far more confidence. But don't get us wrong, there's still a huge emphasis on comfort, something we found agreeable except when rolling across the sort of choppy concrete slabs you find on overused freeways, especially here in California. Despite its long wheelbase, the Sienna's ride is too busy over such surfaces.

For all the Sienna's newfound emphasis on driving dynamics, the Honda Odyssey remains the leader when it comes to the way a minivan should drive. Though the Odyssey is massive, it still drives like a car in a way that no other manufacturer can achieve. There's a sublime balance between comfort and just enough control to feel safe and reassured. Honda has nailed the subtleties.

Of these two minivans, only the 2011 Toyota Sienna has a gated lever for its six-speed transmission, something that lets you more precisely control engine braking, which is very useful in a vehicle that's likely to be driven while heavily loaded.

PerformanceThe Sienna V6's extra 20 ponies turn up in full force in acceleration tests, where Toyota's minivan scoots to 60 mph from a standstill in only 7.9 seconds (7.6 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). The quarter-mile is also dispatched quickly, some 15.8 seconds at 90.5 mph. This performance is considerably quicker than that of the Odyssey, which requires 8.8 seconds to reach 60 mph (8.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and goes through the quarter-mile in 16.6 seconds at 84.8 mph.

The braking distance required to stop from 60 mph is much the same for these two minivans, with the Toyota coming to a stop in 127 feet, some 3 feet shorter than the Odyssey. The real story, however, isn't that the Sienna stopped shorter. Rather, it's that after only four stops the Odyssey's brake pedal went soft and stopping distances began to increase. In fact, the Odyssey's brake pedal action subsequently became so soft that it dramatically compromised effectiveness. If driving on mountain roads is a common experience for you, the Toyota Sienna's braking performance should sway you.

What the 2010 Honda Odyssey lacks in straight-line gusto it makes up for through our 600-foot slalom course. Its fastest run of 61.7 mph is 1.1 mph faster than the Sienna, which has a very aggressive calibration for its stability control system. More important, the Honda's conventional hydraulic-assist power steering proves well weighted in its effort level and offers intuitive action and feel, while the Sienna's electric-assist system makes the steering feel numb, particularly off-center where it lacks feedback.

Neither van allowed its stability control to be fully disabled — a trait that was most obvious on the skid pad. Here the Toyota's larger 18-inch tires helped it produce 0.77g in lateral acceleration versus the Odyssey's 0.74g performance.

Fuel consumption was a virtual wash between the two. Over the course of more than 1,000 miles, the Sienna nudged the Odyssey by an insignificant 0.1 mpg, 20.5 mpg versus 20.6 mpg.
You Can't LoseBoth these vans are immensely capable and neither exhibits any significant shortcomings. In other words, you'll be making a solid choice with either one. But there can only be one winner. And in this case, it's the 2011 Toyota Sienna.

There's no arguing with the Sienna Limited's high-value features when one considers the relatively minor $525 premium you'll pay for them. Most of these — like iPod integration, adaptive cruise control and keyless ignition/entry — are just examples of the latest convenience technology and will likely be available on the new 2011 Honda Odyssey next year. The quality of the Sienna's interior isn't as nice as we'd like, but what it lacks in materials quality it more than makes up for in design. Then there's the fact that the 2011 Toyota Sienna has a power advantage over the 2010 Honda Odyssey, yet still matches the Honda's fuel-efficiency.

Though it might not be the vehicle of every man's dreams, the 2011 Toyota Sienna is simply the best value in minivans sold today. At least until next year. (2011 redesigned Honda Odyssey!)

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/sienna/2011/2011-toyota-sienna-vs-2010-honda-odyssey-minivan-comparison.html