Don't buy a honda after year 2k?

That's why I bought a 1998 Civic and a 2000 Civic (both new from
dealership).

At the time, I didn't need a mechanic to tell that Honda was listening to
the bean counters
when they released 2001. When I got the 2000 Civic EX, the 2001 were just
starting to
arrive into the lots. The price of the 2000 EX and the 2001 LX was the same
(and both cars
were similarly equipped). Lucky for me, I went with the smart buy.

Pars

"Sam Steele" > wrote in message
news:f9xpd.2840$cE3.1075@clgrps12...
> Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000. That
> Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the things
that
> made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
>
>

Paul Cardoza > wrote in message >. ..
> What???? I have a 2003 V6 Accord and a 2003 S2000. Between them
> these are 70,000 trouble free miles. No problems, no squeaks and
> rattles. I'd recommend either to anybody.
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:11:07 GMT, "Sam Steele" >
> wrote:
>
> >Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000. That
> >Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the things that
> >made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
> >

Here's my opinion. I bought two Accords new over the years, a '84
hatchback and a '94, both automatics. My pov is more about the
maintenance side. The '84 died after the transmission conked out
after 8 years and 65k miles. Yep, 65k miles. I spent an average
$400-600 per year on regular maintenance through an independent
mechanic. Really liked that hatchback, rust and all. When I got the
$2k+ estimate to fix the tranny, it was time to move on. Still had
bad memories about the repair bill from the timing belt that gave out
earlier.

Year and a half later I got the '94. I have spent roughly between
$500 in the "cheap" years and $1k+ per year in the "expensive" years
on regular maintenance and repairs through the dealership, give or
take a year or two. This year was an "expensive" year. Just paid my
$1,200 bill for the latest bunch of repairs which included leaky
distributor subassembly, valve rings, etc. Mileage on the '94 is
under 55k and I don't drive like a maniac. I like the '94 Accord
(although less than the '84 hatch) but the upkeep is expensive.
Shooting the breeze with a couple mechanics they told me expect about
the same for the new Accords. I'm sure that after reading this
message, now dozens of Accord owners will chime in replies on how they
maintain their Accords for less than $100 a year with 100k mileage but
that hasn't been my experience. I have the bills to prove it.

Paul Cardoza > wrote in message >. ..
> What???? I have a 2003 V6 Accord and a 2003 S2000. Between them
> these are 70,000 trouble free miles. No problems, no squeaks and
> rattles. I'd recommend either to anybody.
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:11:07 GMT, "Sam Steele" >
> wrote:
>
> >Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000. That
> >Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the things that
> >made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
> >

Here's my opinion. I bought two Accords new over the years, a '84
hatchback and a '94, both automatics. My pov is more about the
maintenance side. The '84 died after the transmission conked out
after 8 years and 65k miles. Yep, 65k miles. I spent an average
$400-600 per year on regular maintenance through an independent
mechanic. Really liked that hatchback, rust and all. When I got the
$2k+ estimate to fix the tranny, it was time to move on. Still had
bad memories about the repair bill from the timing belt that gave out
earlier.

Year and a half later I got the '94. I have spent roughly between
$500 in the "cheap" years and $1k+ per year in the "expensive" years
on regular maintenance and repairs through the dealership, give or
take a year or two. This year was an "expensive" year. Just paid my
$1,200 bill for the latest bunch of repairs which included leaky
distributor subassembly, valve rings, etc. Mileage on the '94 is
under 55k and I don't drive like a maniac. I like the '94 Accord
(although less than the '84 hatch) but the upkeep is expensive.
Shooting the breeze with a couple mechanics they told me expect about
the same for the new Accords. I'm sure that after reading this
message, now dozens of Accord owners will chime in replies on how they
maintain their Accords for less than $100 a year with 100k mileage but
that hasn't been my experience. I have the bills to prove it.

Dart Board wrote:
> the same for the new Accords. I'm sure that after reading this
> message, now dozens of Accord owners will chime in replies on how they
> maintain their Accords for less than $100 a year with 100k mileage but
> that hasn't been my experience. I have the bills to prove it.

crappy luck. my only non-maintenance expense was an oxygen sensor
earlier this year on my 98 civic hatch.

Dart Board wrote:
> the same for the new Accords. I'm sure that after reading this
> message, now dozens of Accord owners will chime in replies on how they
> maintain their Accords for less than $100 a year with 100k mileage but
> that hasn't been my experience. I have the bills to prove it.

crappy luck. my only non-maintenance expense was an oxygen sensor
earlier this year on my 98 civic hatch.

Dang, you've had some bad luck. I have a '94 Accord EX with 125+K miles on
it. The only thing I've done is replace the timing belt (scheduled
maintenance which I'm about to do again) and new cv axles. I've had it for 8
years. Best car I ever owned.
I hope you have better luck from here on out because that's really unusually
high maintenance for Hondas.



I like the '94 Accord
> (although less than the '84 hatch) but the upkeep is expensive.

Dang, you've had some bad luck. I have a '94 Accord EX with 125+K miles on
it. The only thing I've done is replace the timing belt (scheduled
maintenance which I'm about to do again) and new cv axles. I've had it for 8
years. Best car I ever owned.
I hope you have better luck from here on out because that's really unusually
high maintenance for Hondas.



I like the '94 Accord
> (although less than the '84 hatch) but the upkeep is expensive.

slim wrote:

>
> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>>Sam Steele wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000. That
>>>Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the things that
>>>made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>i just dont care for the styling or suspension, myself. im keeping my
>>98. i do like the older, 88-91 civics. low cowl, nice styling.
>
>
> I will NEVER get rid of my 96 Civiv Coupe.
>
> IMHO the best the ever made.
>


if my car got ripped off, id look for an 88-91 civic wagovan, in
excellent shape.

slim wrote:

>
> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>>Sam Steele wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000. That
>>>Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the things that
>>>made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>i just dont care for the styling or suspension, myself. im keeping my
>>98. i do like the older, 88-91 civics. low cowl, nice styling.
>
>
> I will NEVER get rid of my 96 Civiv Coupe.
>
> IMHO the best the ever made.
>


if my car got ripped off, id look for an 88-91 civic wagovan, in
excellent shape.

>>Snip

> Year and a half later I got the '94. I have spent roughly between
> $500 in the "cheap" years and $1k+ per year in the "expensive" years
> on regular maintenance and repairs through the dealership, give or
> take a year or two. This year was an "expensive" year. Just paid my
> $1,200 bill for the latest bunch of repairs which included leaky
> distributor subassembly, valve rings, etc. Mileage on the '94 is
> under 55k and I don't drive like a maniac. I like the '94 Accord
> (although less than the '84 hatch) but the upkeep is expensive.
> Shooting the breeze with a couple mechanics they told me expect about
> the same for the new Accords. I'm sure that after reading this
> message, now dozens of Accord owners will chime in replies on how they
> maintain their Accords for less than $100 a year with 100k mileage but
> that hasn't been my experience. I have the bills to prove it.

I don't doubt your history for this car at all; I don't think you have any
reason to make up or exaggerate anything. I also have a '94 Accord Ex, and I
have to say it is my least favorite of all of my Accords. Little things
about the car (none of which specifically come to mind at the moment) have
disappointed me about this model year from early on.
Two things worth noting about the '94 model year:
1) It was a complete model change for the Accord, with the previous
family beginning in '90 and ending in '93.
2) I firmly believe this was the first generation engineered largely in
the US, some of the engineering carrying over from Japanese design and some
newly involved American design. I think these two factors largely made it a
dismal year for the Accord.
I have a '98 EX as well (fifth? gen Accord-'98~'02) , and I have had
some problems with it that were corrected in successive releases. Also worth
noting about 2003 and later L4 automatic transmission: it was a major design
change from previous L4 ATM. Included some significant advancements which
apparently has made it a very reliable assembly in the L4 Accords.
Doc