 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2005Advice for buying used Accord/Civic, please?
My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so we thought we might check out Hondas. We need to fit 2 adults, 2 dogs, and a baby potentially, so that means 4 doors. So, first, would the Civic be sufficient (one dog is a greyhound!), or would we need to look only at Accords? Second: how young of whichever is recommended can we get for around $2000 through private sale, with A/C, manual trans, dual front airbags and 4/5 doors, that will last about a year, year and a half? If it dies after that, it's ok, lol. But it has to be pretty reliable in the meantime. Or is that a pipe dream? We really can't afford more, seriously... Anything else we should be thinking about/of? Thanks for any info! Kristen > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kristen Don't know where you are, but I last year found a nice '93 Accord in Frederick MD for $2500 (single airbag). There were many more on cars.com to look at in that price range. I'd stick to Accord over Civic, just because they are bigger. Really comes down to your preference. bob > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kristen The fifth generation Civic was made from 1992 to 1995. In most cases, the last one made in a series (eg 1995) is the best of the bunch since any bugs found in prior models in the series were repaired. In other words, by the time the 1995 was made--most all or perhaps ALL of the bugs have been eliminated. If you can find a great deal on a 1995 Civic--buy it. For these same reasons, consider the 1996 Prelude or the 1997 Accord. All of those models were the last in the series. Jason  SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > those models were the last in the series. > Jason Update: The 1993 Accord was also the last model in that series of Accords so you should add that one to your list. If possible, get the EX model since it has the most extras. I once owned a 1993 Accord EX and I loved it. It ran great. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > these same reasons, consider the 1996 Prelude or the 1997 Accord. All of > those models were the last in the series. I disagree.... Ever notice how FEW complaints in this NG are for a 96 Civic? Its one of the best cars Honda ever made, reliable, economical and fun to drive. Signature"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. " - George "Dubya" Bush > > The fifth generation Civic was made from 1992 to 1995. In most cases, the > > last one made in a series (eg 1995) is the best of the bunch since any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Its one of the best cars Honda ever made, reliable, economical > and fun to drive. That's right. As a matter of fact, the Civic chassis was all-new in 92. 96 saw the same platform with some freshened up sheet metal and a redone interior, but mechanically it's more similar to the 92-95 models than not. It wasn't until 2001 that the Civic platform was completely redesigned. That would be the one to stay away from. You'd think the 92, being the first year of a platform, would also be one to stay away from--but I bought a 92 Si brand new, and it lives to this day in awfully good shape with about 137K miles on it--still on its original clutch. So it may be the case in general to stay away from first model years, but your exposure on a Honda first model year is much less than probably your exposure on, say, a GM that's been around forever, using the venerable V6 pushrod engine. >>>The fifth generation Civic was made from 1992 to 1995. In most cases, the >>>last one made in a series (eg 1995) is the best of the bunch since any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > same platform with some freshened up sheet metal and a redone interior, > but mechanically it's more similar to the 92-95 models than not. strictly speaking, the 88-91 was the first of that platform. the suspension is identical in the rear to both the 92-95 & 96-00. there are minor variations in front suspension between all 3 generations, with the last 2 being the most similar, but the overall suspension config & chassis layout for all 3 is the same. > It wasn't until 2001 that the Civic platform was completely redesigned. > That would be the one to stay away from. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > your exposure on, say, a GM that's been around forever, using the > venerable V6 pushrod engine. > > As a matter of fact, the Civic chassis was all-new in 92. 96 saw the > > same platform with some freshened up sheet metal and a redone interior, > > but mechanically it's more similar to the 92-95 models than not. > > strictly speaking, the 88-91 was the first of that platform. Ummm....79 ended the first gen. 80-83 saw the second gen, a beast all to itself. 84-87 was a new platform, but 88-91 was the same platform with refreshed sheetmetal. Then 92-95 was an all-new platform, unrelated to the 84-91 platform. 96-00 (when they changed to a 5 year model changeover, up from 4 years) was the same with fresh sheetmetal. Come to think of it, the decision to move to a 5 year cycle--made in the middle of the Civic's 96-00 reign--signaled the beginning of the bean counters, and the end of engineering at Honda. >>>As a matter of fact, the Civic chassis was all-new in 92. 96 saw the >>>same platform with some freshened up sheet metal and a redone interior, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unrelated to the 84-91 platform. 96-00 (when they changed to a 5 year > model changeover, up from 4 years) was the same with fresh sheetmetal. dude, with respect, i've owned a waggonload of the 88-91's, still own a 00 and have worked on a bunch of the 92-95's. i'm telling you, all 3 gens are the same. front suspension: 88-91 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SH30/007/2.jpg 92-95 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SR30/007/7.jpg 96-00 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13S030/007/2.jpg rear suspension: 88-91 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SH30/007/5.jpg 92-95 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SR30/008/1.jpg 96-00 http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13S030/007/5.jpg the 84-87 was utterly different: front: http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SB30/010/3.jpg rear: http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SB30/010/6.jpg > Come to think of it, the decision to move to a 5 year cycle--made in the > middle of the Civic's 96-00 reign--signaled the beginning of the bean > counters, and the end of engineering at Honda. > dude, with respect, i've owned a waggonload of the 88-91's, still own a > 00 and have worked on a bunch of the 92-95's. i'm telling you, all 3 > gens are the same. hmmmmm..... > > dude, with respect, i've owned a waggonload of the 88-91's, still own a > > 00 and have worked on a bunch of the 92-95's. i'm telling you, all 3 > > gens are the same. > > hmmmmm..... Yep, I wouldn't belittle the 88-91. In my opinion, the best looking of the bunch and it shared the same suspension design as my 98 Hatch. That model has been around for 16 years and there's still a lot of them on the road. But mechanically speaking, I think the last iteration of the front double wishbone Civic was the best. Pars >>>dude, with respect, i've owned a waggonload of the 88-91's, still own a >>>00 and have worked on a bunch of the 92-95's. i'm telling you, all 3 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pars the 98 looks butt tho... 88-91 is the best! if i could really be bothered, i'd put the 00 ex motor & electronics in my 89. fast & frugal! > Yep, I wouldn't belittle the 88-91. In my opinion, the best looking of the > bunch and it shared the same suspension design as my 98 Hatch. That model > has been around for 16 years and there's still a lot of them on the road. > But mechanically speaking, I think the last iteration of the front double > wishbone Civic was the best. if something were to happen to my 98, id definately consider getting a 91 Si. Since I'm alway going off topic: Did ya know that the 05 Civic can do over a 1000Km per Tank? I think the Reverb's body kit might have helped... http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/50-litre.htm Pars > > Yep, I wouldn't belittle the 88-91. In my opinion, the best looking of the > > bunch and it shared the same suspension design as my 98 Hatch. That model [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if something were to happen to my 98, id definately consider getting a > 91 Si. >Ummm....79 ended the first gen. 80-83 saw the second gen, a beast all >to itself. 84-87 was a new platform, but 88-91 was the same platform >with refreshed sheetmetal. Then 92-95 was an all-new platform, >unrelated to the 84-91 platform. 96-00 (when they changed to a 5 year >model changeover, up from 4 years) was the same with fresh sheetmetal. The 1988 and 1996 changes were more than just fresh sheetmetal. The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected engines. The famed double wishbone suspension on all four wheels was also included in the 1988 models. Wheelbase was also increased compared to the 1984 model. The 1996 model came with engine changes, and a longer wheelbase for the hatchbacks. Most notable was that the HX replaced the VX, with more power, but worse fuel economy (the HX was not that much better than the regular Civics). Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected > engines. Are you sure about this? I thought that you still get a carbureted engine in a 4th-gen Civic, and that '92 was the first year that all Civics got fuel injection. >> The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected >> engines. > >Are you sure about this? I thought that you still get a carbureted engine >in a 4th-gen Civic, If true in the US, that would only be for the base model 70hp engine with 4-speed manual transmission; the DX/LX/Wagovan 1.5L 92hp engine and the Si/4WD-wagon 1.6L 106?hp engines were fuel injected. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >>The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected >>engines. > > Are you sure about this? I thought that you still get a carbureted engine > in a 4th-gen Civic, and that '92 was the first year that all Civics got fuel > injection. in the u.s., 88-on are all fuel injected. the 1.5l 88-91 models has a dual point throttle body injection unit that /looks/ like a carburettor, but isn't! the 1.6l has 4-point injection. >>The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected >>engines. > > Are you sure about this? I thought that you still get a carbureted engine > in a 4th-gen Civic, and that '92 was the first year that all Civics got fuel > injection. I owned a base model '91 Civic, and it was fuel injected. Fuel injection from that era came in two flavors: Dual-Point Throttle Body Injection, which was on the D15B1 and D15B2 motors, and a port-injection system that was on the D15B6 motor in the HF (High gas mileage) model, and on the Si. The HF motor had only 8 valves, while the rest were all 16 valve engines. I saw three of these motors when I did a swap at 225,000 miles. The D15B1 motor was original, the yard gave me an HF (D15B6) motor by mistake, and I traded it back to them for a D15B2 motor, which was a direct bolt-in and plug-in replacement. I got over 40 MPG with the setup, and drove it another 40,000 miles before buying my Accord 5 years ago, and sold the civic to a friend. He still has it, and it has nearly 300,000 miles on it. With gas prices what they are, I might offer to buy it back :-) >>The fifth generation Civic was made from 1992 to 1995. In most cases, the >>last one made in a series (eg 1995) is the best of the bunch since any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Its one of the best cars Honda ever made, reliable, economical > and fun to drive. im pretty sure the 96-00 civics were all pretty much carryover technology from the 92-95 models. > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, first, would the Civic be sufficient (one dog is a greyhound!), or > would we need to look only at Accords? I think you will prefer the Accord, comfort-wise. I'm not sure how much more space it affords. > Second: how young of whichever is recommended can we get for around > $2000 through private sale, with A/C, manual trans, dual front airbags > and 4/5 doors, that will last about a year, year and a half? Based on www.edmunds.com, I'd estimate 1994-1996 are possibilities. As a baseline, Edmunds states for my area (which is not on either coast) one can expect the following for about $2500: 1995 Accord DX automatic transmission air conditioning 100,000 miles Average condition Change the mileage to 150k miles, and the average private party price goes down to about $1300. I wouldn't go over 150k miles. I'd aim for a 100k miles or lower. I would expect you could get another 100,000 miles out of this car, assuming you maintained it properly. > If it > dies after that, it's ok, lol. But it has to be pretty reliable in > the meantime. Or is that a pipe dream? We really can't afford more, > seriously... > > Anything else we should be thinking about/of? Try to get a car with a written maintenance history. Preferably, a 1995 Accord with a 100k miles on it will have had its timing belt changed in the last few years. If it hasn't negotiate this into the deal. Figure a $500 credit. Elle 1991 Civic LX sedan, original owner We are on our 3 accord. I would highly recommend it. The one I am driving now is a 92 and we got it 2 years ago for $1200 in central Ohio. Needed a few cosmetic things for about $100. Still driving it, looks good, everything works except for AC sometimes. Has 225K miles and I wouldn't hesitate to take it across country. > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kristen >My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've >found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, Honda resale value is also high, although reliability is typically better than VW. >so we thought we might check out Hondas. We need to fit 2 adults, 2 >dogs, and a baby potentially, so that means 4 doors. > >So, first, would the Civic be sufficient (one dog is a greyhound!), or >would we need to look only at Accords? Bring the whole family (including the dogs and an infant seat) for test fitting. Wagons may be helpful, but they are not common (Civic wagon until 1991 in the US, Accord wagon until 1997 in the US). Reliability will be most dependent on previous owner care and maintenance. Be especially careful about checking when the timing belt was last changed -- it is several hundred dollars to change, and failure can cause major engine damage. Also, on older Hondas, do full lock parking lot turns; if you hear grinding or clicking noises, the CV boots have cracked and allowed dirt into the CV joints, requiring repair (the boots typically last about 100,000 miles or so). You might also want to look at Chevrolet or Geo Prizms or 1980s Chevrolet Novas -- rebadged Toyota Corollas with good reliability and lower resale value from the "Chevrolet" or "Geo" badge. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. Forget Honda. At $2000, you'll probably end up with a headake. Unless the deal is from a personal aquantance and the orginal owner. An alternative is the 1996's Lumina. Pars > My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've > found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Kristen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pars" <sdaro(remove)@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.honda,alt.autos.honda Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:51 PM Subject: Re: Advice for buying used Accord/Civic, please? > Forget Honda. At $2000, you'll probably end up with a headake. Unless > the deal is from a personal aquantance and the orginal owner. > > An alternative is the 1996's Lumina. > > Pars I'm not sure why you say that, except that bargain hunting requires savvy and patience. For $2000 you can get a Honda that has been well maintained if you aren't set on getting one a late model one or getting one in a hurry. There are a number of things to check. The timing belt should have been changed in the last 50K miles or so, leaving some time on the belt. No rust in the cooling system and no varnish in the engine are mandatory, and rare - that 's why the buyer has to be ready to kiss several frogs. The temperature guage must stay in the mid-range while driving with the A/C on, because of the chance of head gasket failure. But intermittent failure to start and stalling are just signs of main relay trouble, a common and cheap failure that can cause people to drop the price $1000 or more, not knowing they can fix it for a tenth that amount. Mike > > Forget Honda. At $2000, you'll probably end up with a headake. Unless > > the deal is from a personal aquantance and the orginal owner. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and patience. For $2000 you can get a Honda that has been well maintained if > you aren't set on getting one a late model one or getting one in a hurry. Buying used is like gambling. The high resale value on the Honda makes it possible for the crook to pan off a lemon while using the car's inherent reputation to justify the $2000 charge. Also, GM's Automatic tranny, from a decade ago, has a better reputation then Honda's Automatics from the same generation. When shopping for a $2000 Automatic, the durability of the transmission should be the most important qualifier. It doesn't make sense to spend $1500 on a rebuilt tranny for a car that's worthless. Pars > There are a number of things to check. The timing belt should have been > changed in the last 50K miles or so, leaving some time on the belt. No rust [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike >Also, GM's Automatic tranny, from a decade ago, has a better reputation then >Honda's Automatics from the same generation. When shopping for a $2000 >Automatic, the durability of the transmission >should be the most important qualifier. It doesn't make sense to spend $1500 >on a rebuilt tranny for a car that's worthless. Didn't the original poster indicate looking for a car with a manual transmission? In that case, reliability and durability of the automatic transmission would not be an issue. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > >Also, GM's Automatic tranny, from a decade ago, has a better reputation then > >Honda's Automatics from the same generation. When shopping for a $2000 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > transmission? In that case, reliability and durability of the automatic > transmission would not be an issue. True, but original post specified Automatic transmission. Thanks for the tips! :) See ya, Kristen |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.