I might buy this 1990 Civic, see . . .

Hi everybody,

I'm looking at buying a cheap used car and I have a lead on a 1990 Civic
-- manual tranny. I've done a little (very little) research on this model
and it seems to be the least mecahnically reliable model year of the
"recent" Civics (one website has a 5-star rating system, this model year
rates a 2-out-of-5 with it's greatest weakness being mechanical
reliability).

It's only going to be a commuter car basically but naturally I want as
reliable a vehicle as I can get.

Can anybody shed some light on what the common problems (especially the
expensive ones) with this model year are and what I should be looking
at/looking out for when I go to look at this car?

Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.

Owner of a 1991 Civic sedan LX, manual tranny, 157k miles, and 40+mpg here. I'm
the only owner. Still has its original clutch.

How many miles are on this Civic you're looking at?

The leading problems of early 1990s Civics seem to be minor but nonetheless
possess the potential to leave one stranded somewhere. I'd say they a

Distributor problems (in order: ignitor failure; coil failure; rotor set screw
failure so that the rotor comes off(!); housing(?) seal failure; bearing
failure). I've seen the first three, some more than once.

Main relay failure (amply covered here at the newsgroup and at several good web
sites). Happened once on my car, in 1999.

Ignition switch failure. Hasn't happened on my car but is reported mucho here.

Repairing any one of these should never be more than about $150 from an
independent import shop.

Stay on top of the timing belt, the clutch and various minor oil seals, and the
PCV valve, and the early 1990s Civics should go over 200k miles. I'm hoping to
take mine to 250k miles.

Who gave the 1990 Civic a 2/5 star rating? Seems awfully low. Does this rating
somehow take into account the age of the car or something?

"phillystyle" > wrote
> I'm looking at buying a cheap used car and I have a lead on a 1990 Civic
> -- manual tranny. I've done a little (very little) research on this model
> and it seems to be the least mecahnically reliable model year of the
> "recent" Civics (one website has a 5-star rating system, this model year
> rates a 2-out-of-5 with it's greatest weakness being mechanical
> reliability).
>
> It's only going to be a commuter car basically but naturally I want as
> reliable a vehicle as I can get.
>
> Can anybody shed some light on what the common problems (especially the
> expensive ones) with this model year are and what I should be looking
> at/looking out for when I go to look at this car?
>
> Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:26:50 -0400, "phillystyle" >
wrote:

>I'm looking at buying a cheap used car and I have a lead on a 1990 Civic

1. Does the car have a maintenance history? The timing belt must be
changed ever 6 years or 90,000 miles, so it was due in 1996 and again
in 2002. If it hasn't been changed or if you don't know for sure that
it has been changed, you need to do so, and while the parts are cheap,
labour can be expensive. Do you bend your own wrenches?

2. In a parking lot, with both windows open, drive the car in a circle
at full lock in both directions, listening for the front constant-
velocity joints making a 'ruckle-ruckle' noise. Check to make sure
their rubber boots are in good shape.

3. Check the jacking points under the doorsills for rust. Make sure
your jack won't just go right through crumbling metal. Check the top
of the shock towers for rust too.

If it's the least reliable, why da hell are you buying it???????




____________________________________
Do not write below this line. Reserved for me.

LOL, I knew there would have to be at least one in the bunch! I'm
considering buying it because in this context least reliable is like you
know, a relative-type term. As in the least reliable Honda Civic may be
more reliable than the most reliable Ford Escort and as a result might be
more than reliable enough. You dig?

Anyway, it's a 1990 hatchback with 152,000 miles. I took it for a test
drive today. The car's by no means perfect but I'm only planning to drive
it for a year -- anything more is just a bonus. It seemd to be in OK
shape. I listened hard for the
crunch and grinding of bad CV joints and they seemed fine. One of the
boots will need to be replaced. It ran fine but the
tranny was pretty noisy when the revs got high (3000-4000 I'm guessing
since there's no tach). I don't mean noisy in the
usual high-revving-whine-kind-of-way but I'm not exactly sure how to
describe it. So of course, that's a little bit of a concern. It's got a
4-speed manual transmission; the clutch felt pretty tight and no
resistance getting it into gear. No grinding. The belts are a bit more
tricky an issue. Does anybody know whether this car has an interference
or non-interference engine? I'm figuring that if the engine's not going
to self-destruct if the timing belt breaks I'll just ignore the belts for
now.

The 2-star (2-circle actually) rating was at cars.com. I'm not sure how
they come up with their determinations but it did
seem kind of noteworthy that a Civic would rate so low, so I looked at
other model years (1991 & above) and they were 3-4 circles. This year
seems to have some kind of mechanical issue(s) associated with it. Of
course that's just one source so I'm doing more looking and asking
around.

No service history is available. Jacking points were fine. I Didn't check
the shock towers though.

Thanks for the input. I'm certainly open for more. )

"phillystyle" > wrote in message alkaboutautos.com>...
> LOL, I knew there would have to be at least one in the bunch! I'm
> considering buying it because in this context least reliable is like you
> know, a relative-type term. As in the least reliable Honda Civic may be
> more reliable than the most reliable Ford Escort and as a result might be
> more than reliable enough. You dig?
>
> Anyway, it's a 1990 hatchback with 152,000 miles. I took it for a test
> drive today. The car's by no means perfect but I'm only planning to drive
> it for a year -- anything more is just a bonus. It seemd to be in OK
> shape. I listened hard for the
> crunch and grinding of bad CV joints and they seemed fine. One of the
> boots will need to be replaced. It ran fine but the
> tranny was pretty noisy when the revs got high (3000-4000 I'm guessing
> since there's no tach). I don't mean noisy in the
> usual high-revving-whine-kind-of-way but I'm not exactly sure how to
> describe it. So of course, that's a little bit of a concern. It's got a
> 4-speed manual transmission; the clutch felt pretty tight and no
> resistance getting it into gear. No grinding. The belts are a bit more
> tricky an issue. Does anybody know whether this car has an interference
> or non-interference engine? I'm figuring that if the engine's not going
> to self-destruct if the timing belt breaks I'll just ignore the belts for
> now.
>
> The 2-star (2-circle actually) rating was at cars.com. I'm not sure how
> they come up with their determinations but it did
> seem kind of noteworthy that a Civic would rate so low, so I looked at
> other model years (1991 & above) and they were 3-4 circles. This year
> seems to have some kind of mechanical issue(s) associated with it. Of
> course that's just one source so I'm doing more looking and asking
> around.
>
> No service history is available. Jacking points were fine. I Didn't check
> the shock towers though.
>
> Thanks for the input. I'm certainly open for more. )

Are you sure the odd "noise" isn't tire noise?
My 1991 Civic, and a friend's 1990 both are a little sensitive to
tires. By that I mean some tires produce a LOT of noise.
Mainly from the rear tires. So much noise that above 30MPH you
can't hear the engine. Very irratating.
Terry

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:59:43 -0400, "phillystyle" >
wrote:

>The belts are a bit more
>tricky an issue. Does anybody know whether this car has an interference
>or non-interference engine? I'm figuring that if the engine's not going
>to self-destruct if the timing belt breaks I'll just ignore the belts for
>now.

There are very few Hondas with non-interference engines. That Civic
isn't one of them. If it throws a timing belt it won't be worth the
cash outlay to fix unless you do your own work.

The car does have new tires on it which could be making noise but I'm
pretty sure it's a tranny noise because it seemed to correlate to the
revs. This was true in all gears but, for example, if I was in say second
I'd get the noise around the time I should be shifting and it would go away
when I shifted into the next gear.
- - - - -
So it's likely an interference engine huh? That's definitely something to
think about. does anybody know how much it should cost to replace timing
belt on this thing?

Thanks so far everybody.

The car does have new tires on it which could be making noise but I'm
pretty sure it's a tranny noise because it seemed to correlate to the
revs. This was true in all gears but, for example, if I was in say second
I'd get the noise around the time I should be shifting and it would go away
when I shifted into the next gear.
- - - - -
So it's likely an interference engine huh? That's definitely something to
think about. does anybody know how much it should cost to replace timing
belt on this thing?

Thanks so far everybody.