Which Accord would you buy?

[Heywhatsupdooddd]

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

 

[Belgian]

Go for the 1991 , way much better car, even though there is some mileage on it it does not scare me at all get it inspected to make sure. compression test and the basic othe stuff !

 

[Sean Donaher]

"Heywhatsupdooddd" wrote:

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

That's a tough call. Off the top of head I would say that the 1989 is a better deal because it's has like 80,000 less miles on which matters more than the measly 2 years difference in age. However, the 1989 and the 1991 are different generations of Accord. The 1989 still had pop-up headlight and was closer to a moderm civic in size. The 1991 is the newer style where they had "normal" headlights and it's a little bigger with more rounded features. I used to have a 1987 accord and I loved it. I'm pretty the 1989 is the same generation as the 87. Like I said, personally, I'd go with the 1989 because the price is the same and the mileage is much lower but if the appearance, style and confort level of the car appeals to you, the maybe the 1991 might be a better choice. My vote goes with the 1989 though.

 

[SoCalMike]

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

if the mileage is verifiable, then the 89.

 

[FB]

Either one probably needs a timing belt pretty soon unless they have been changed..and maybe a water pump too. I think I would go for the '89..but that sure is low milage. Make sure it has been driven regularly.

fb
"Heywhatsupdooddd" wrote:

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

 

[Mikeman075]

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

Hondas with 130K miles should be fine. The '91 Accord LX has a 2.2 liter 125 horse power fuel injected engine while the '89 Accord LX has a 2.0 liter 98 horsepower CARBURATED engine.They are harder to start when its cold out. Plus the '91 has more room and better styling IMO. I'd go with the '91. If you can swing it, look for a '92. It has a driver's airbag.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

1989 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 55,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

OR

1991 Accord LX with auto, a/c, 130,000 miles. Perfect body and interior.
Asking $2000.

The one with 130K miles, if and only if it was one owner and had all maintenance records, and they were all dealer maintenance.

OR

The one with 55K miles, if I was comfortable with replacing all the rubber (including timing belt) and rotten exhaust parts.

Cars like to run and be exercised. 4000 miles/year is too low; things do rot. Nothing got exercised well, so much of it isn't working very well. It sat too much, and things got fixed in the sitting position, so to speak.

 

[Heywhatsupdooddd]

if the mileage is verifiable, then the 89.

It's verified by Carfax.

 

[Heywhatsupdooddd]

The '91 Accord LX has a 2.2 liter 125
horse power fuel injected engine while the '89 Accord LX has a 2.0 liter 98 horsepower CARBURATED engine.

My fault. The 1989 Accord should be LXi, not LX. It is fuel injected and 120hp.

 

[Heywhatsupdooddd]

The one with 130K miles, if and only if it was one owner and had all

maintenance records, and they were all dealer maintenance.

No records on either one. They're being sold by a used car dealer with a very good reputation and a 3 month warranty.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

The one with 130K miles, if and only if it was one owner and had all maintenance records, and they were all dealer maintenance.

No records on either one. They're being sold by a used car dealer with a very good reputation and a 3 month warranty.[/QUOTE]

Get the one with 130K miles, then.

 

[mrdancer]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

The one with 130K miles, if and only if it was one owner and had all maintenance records, and they were all dealer maintenance.

Huh? I wouldn't trust the dealer to do my maintenance, unless it was something big like a timing belt. I don't trust them with the small stuff; heck, they run the car around to the 5-minute Quicky-Lube across the street to do their "dealer" oil changes (and they do NOT use 5W20 oil). I prefer to do my own maintenance w/ quality Castrol oil and genuine Honda oil filters/parts.

 

[Mikeman075]

My fault. The 1989 Accord should be LXi, not LX. It is fuel injected and 120hp.

The '89 Accord LXi was a nice car and better than the LX but I'd still go for the '91. More torque, more room, and probably less likely to rust over time. Plus filp up head lights are notorious for not going down after awhile which is probably why you don't see them too much anymore on new cars .When they are up they do hurt the aerodynamis a bit leading to slightly lower MPG. The '90-'93 Accord was one of the best cars of its day. Its probably still better than a lot of the new American cars you see around today such as the Ford Taurus and some others. With any '86-'91 Honda or Acura model (as well as many other Japanese brand cars), make sure the Takata seatbelt latch recall was performed.

 

[Timothy J. Lee]

No records on either one. They're being sold by a used car dealer with a very good reputation and a 3 month warranty.

For either one, if you buy it, you'll need to replace all fluids, filters, belts (including timing belt) and other consumables (such as the water pump if driven by the timing belt) immediately upon purchase, if there is no indication on when the maintenance items were done and the condition cannot be determined by inspection. Otherwise, you won't know where in the maintenance schedule the car is, so you won't know when to do everything (and you may get some unpleasant surprises like timing belt failures).

 

[¿fooguy?]

For either one, if you buy it, you'll need to replace all fluids, filters, belts (including timing belt) and other consumables (such as the water pump if driven by the timing belt) immediately upon purchase, if there is no indication on when the maintenance items were done and the condition cannot be determined by inspection. Otherwise, you won't know where in the maintenance schedule the car is, so you won't know when to do everything (and you may get some unpleasant surprises like timing belt failures).

I disagree, and here is why I vote for the 1989:

You don't know when the timing belt and waterpump were done on the '91 (if at all), and particularly on small jap engines with aluminun heads they have to be done before the timing belt snaps. It doesn't need to be done until 100k miles, so if you get the 89 and you're confident in the miles you know you can drive almost a year until that needs to be done.

Now that said, two different shade tree mechanics ruined both my parents engines (89 accord and 91 civic) when the timing belt and water pump was done. The 89 accord also went through two transmissions, but I'm convinved that was who serviced it and not anything wrong with the model year. The 89 accord also had some rust issues due to recycled metal being used (check near the gas tank and the weld in back on the trunk below the tail lights). May not be a problem if you didn't come from colder, wetter climates.

I thought the 90 accords were ugly, but that's just taste. Both are probably excellent cars, but I think in the end you need to drive them both and see how they are. You can probably drive both for another 4 or 5 years and only change the oil and replace wear parts (brakes, tires, etc) and they'll be fine.