Don't buy a honda after year 2k?

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

how many of those are post-2000 vehicles?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

I will NEVER get rid of my 96 Civiv Coupe.

IMHO the best the ever made.

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm

 

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

 

Snip

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.