Don't buy a honda after year 2k?

[Sam Steele]

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.

 

[Joel Blutfield]

What?? My wife and I have an '02 CRV and 03 Civic. Have 0ver 30,000 on the CRV an about 22,000 on the Civic. Not a single problem on either!

 

[SoCalMike]

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.

 

[Paul Cardoza]

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.

 

[kyle lallave]

by chance were they mechanics from another company?!?! if sdo they just want u to buy their cars. me whole family has hondas my sis, dad,and mom have 2000+ accords and civic...all have not 1 single problem with it..the mechanic u talked to is a fuckin dumbass

 

[jim beam]

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 love that vintage civic too. based on what i've seen, including the abandonment of wishbone suspension, there's no way i'd buy a post 2000 honda. yes, i know the accords still use wishbones, but when the next gen accord abondons them too, we'll know for sure that honda is now run by bean counters, not car enthusiasts like it used to be.

 

[net-doctor]

Fuel for a fire, especially in this forum. I would challenge them to be more specific in thier gripes. We have had some design related issues, but each generation of Honda is built on a previous design, with changes made to improve performance and reliability. Unlike some domestic automakers (who shall remain nameless), Honda's aim is to make a better product for less money; ultimately that is the only way to survive the competition.

BTW...I have five Accords sitting in my driveway right now, with a total of over 750,000 collective miles, and I'll take Honda any day of the week over the next best thing.

Doc

 

[SoCalMike]

Fuel for a fire, especially in this forum. I would challenge them to be more specific in thier gripes. We have had some design related issues, but each generation of Honda is built on a previous design, with changes made to improve performance and reliability. Unlike some domestic automakers (who shall remain nameless), Honda's aim is to make a better product for less money; ultimately that is the only way to survive the competition.

and toyota does that too.

BTW...I have five Accords sitting in my driveway right now, with a total of over 750,000 collective miles, and I'll take Honda any day of the week over the next best thing.

i like honda, but i wouldnt be "above" switching to toyota or its scion division. i dont think one is noticeably better than the other.

 

[net-doctor]

i like honda, but i wouldnt be "above" switching to toyota or its scion division. i dont think one is noticeably better than the other.

Doc is admittedly biased towards Honda after having been on the payroll for nearly twenty years...

 

[jim beam]

Fuel for a fire, especially in this forum. I would challenge them to be more specific in thier gripes. We have had some design related issues, but each generation of Honda is built on a previous design, with changes made to improve performance and reliability. Unlike some domestic automakers (who shall remain nameless), Honda's aim is to make a better product for less money; ultimately that is the only way to survive the competition.

BTW...I have five Accords sitting in my driveway right now, with a total of over 750,000 collective miles, and I'll take Honda any day of the week over the next best thing.

Doc

how many of those are post-2000 vehicles?

 

[pars]

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

 

[Dart Board]

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.

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.

 

[SoCalMike]

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.

 

[Dee]

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

 

[slim]

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.

 

[SoCalMike]

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.

 

[net-doctor]

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

 

[SoCalMike]

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.

it definately wasnt a good generation. seemed smaller than the previous car. i seem to see more of the previous gen on the roads than that gen.

 

[Gordon McGrew]

and toyota does that too.

i like honda, but i wouldnt be "above" switching to toyota or its scion division. i dont think one is noticeably better than the other.

From a reliability standpoint, it appears that Toyota is as good, if not a tad better than Honda. However, in my limited experience, the Hondas always seem to be more of a driver's car than the comparable Toyota. That appeals to me more and more as time goes on.

As for this "after Y2K" stuff; I have been following this Newsgroup since 1996 and it seems that someone is always saying, "Honda doesn't make them like they used to. It seems like I have come full circle and the ones that weren't 'made like they used to' are now the ones that the new models aren't as good as.

I have owned Honda's continuously since 1974, having owned models from 1974 (Civic), 1980 (Accord), 1986 (Integra), 1994 (Integra GS-R) and 1998 (Odyssey).

(I still own the last two.) While it is still too early to say about the 1998, I can honestly say that each of the cars before it was significantly better than the previous model for reliability, durability and driving enjoyment. (OK, for driving enjoyment I actually preferred the Civic over the Accord and there is no way the Ody compares to the GS-R in driving experience but you know what I mean.) Each car had its idiosyncrasies and its strong points where it was superior over the next model. But overall the improvement in quality is dramatic when you skip ahead six years or so.

Will the 2004s break the trend? Well, I will buy one in maybe three or four years. Then I will drive it for seven or eight. I will report back in 2015 or so and let you know.

 

[SoCalMike]

As for this "after Y2K" stuff; I have been following this Newsgroup since 1996 and it seems that someone is always saying, "Honda doesn't make them like they used to. It seems like I have come full circle and the ones that weren't 'made like they used to' are now the ones that the new models aren't as good as.

eh. my favorite generation of civics has to be the 88-91, and accords the 90-94. ive never owned any of em- just the 98 i drive now. its ok, but bloated compared to the 88-91 hatches.