falling apart?!?!?!

Ok, I bought my car a year ago. Already I have put over 5g’s worth of
parts into it, from axels and roters to motor mounts, three radiators,
and 02 sensors. A week ago the SPEED SENSOR??? went out. I paid almost
$200.00 to have it fixed. The check engine light came on again
tonight. The code read main circut malfunction. I have no clue. Anyone
know the costs on this repair and is it worth it? :cry:

1996 Honda Accord

 

How many miles are on this beast?

I have a 1996 Accord LX with 184k on it right now. I purchased it new.

So far, all I have spent money on besides tires and oil changes are:

1 Right axle boot.
Brake Rotors (once)
2 Timing belts/water pumps.
1 O2 Sensor
1 Muffler.

I'm a pretty happy camper!

G-Man

 

Then you have been getting abominably bad diagnosis and repair.

What was wrong in the first place that led you to agree to all this? Sounds
like at least some of the repairs were to fix the consequences of poor
maintenance.

No it didn't. It read Pxxxx, where the X's are numbers.

Please tell us the number, along with any symptoms coincident with the
error code.

I have no clue either. You have related a tale of woe, but zero details. We
are not psychics, so give us something to work with.

What model? What engine? Automatic or manual?

 

Three radiators? In one year?

SD

 

Several front end collisions?

 

LMAO. You don't. Indeed.

Anyone

Of course not. It will only get worse from here.
I always have a kick at people buying
dilapidated crap for the money they could have
easily spent on a american car in a decent condition.
Been had once too. No more very used old crap for me.
Japanese or american. And don't cry. You can find another sucker
to buy it. After all it's JAPANESE.

Yes, I drive a jap car and no, I don't like driving american cars
at all. But I have to be fair to the Detrua: their cars are far
more reliable than some people would like you think.

 

I'm guessing here, but I believe you mean sane and reasonable people.

 

I have to ask where's the reliability data is coming from?
Consumer retorts? People seem to rate their cars based on how
they like them not on how reliable they are
(despite the istructions from retorts I guess)
The reliability results they publish (per model per year) is pure
rubbish.
What could've been reliable is the extended service plan costs
from insurance companies if they were to sell them for 50-100k miles.
Is there such a thing?

 

You have no basis on which to make that statement. The survey is the
best information available to the consumer on auto reliability.

 

Personal experience is one source.

 

Ok. So there is the data tabulated by make, model and year.
You see that 02 Camry for example has held up better than
02 Monte Carlo or whatever. So what does it mean to the used
car buyer? The if he had money to buy a new camry instead
monte carlo in 2001 he would've been better off if he were to
sell it.
But this is NOT the kind of information that the used car
buyer needs. If he has $5k in hand chances off that his question
is: what could I buy that won't fall apart the next day
for that amount of money? 02 monte carlo with 60k miles or 1998 civic
with 120k?
And, frankly, I suspect that 02 monte carlo would hold up
better if only due to newer age and much lower mileage.
Of course it does not hurt that the jap used cars overpriced,
if I were to sell one of mine tomorrow I'd get a good chunk of
cash for either one of them. Primarily because of the mass
psychosis "jap cars are more reliable". Yes. For the same model
year and zero miles on odometer they might be. However,
due to much more rapid depreciation of american cars the chances
that $5k jap is better reliability wise than an am car
are very slim. Jap cars (with exception of the current toyota crop)
are usually fun to drive (civics and accords I believe
fall into that category) and that slows down depreciation further.

 

Look; the cars are not overpriced, by definition. Certainly, specific
individuals pay more (and less) than the value of a car - but the
overall market is what shows the value and sets the price of cars. If
the Japanese models were not consistently worth what people are paying
for them - new and used - they wouldn't sell, and the price would
decline. We are seeing evaluations (through pricing) set over decades.
Sure, they could all go to crap tomorrow, and the market would take
some time to adjust - but it *would* adjust (remember Saturn?)

Face it: the reason the '02 Camry costs a good deal more than the '02
Monte Carlo is because it is worth a good deal more. That's simple
reality. The figures shown in Consumer Reports for reliability (they
break reliability down in to specific categories such as engine,
electrical, etc.) reflect this value; they don't invent it.

You need to step away from the kool-aid.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

That is actually a very good point. As a used car buyer who favors cars over
100K miles and looks suspiciously at cars under 80K, used car reports as to
which $10K car will hold up better the next few years don't help at all. For
all the scorn Usenet takes, it is the best way I know of getting the feel of
which cars exhibit which problems as they get old. For example, I've learned
the Ford Contour is a no-no even for a Ford fan, while the Crown Vic is a
good choice. At 50K miles and three years it could have been a close
contest... or not. That Honda has no lemons of that sort is fine.

Mike

 

No, it means that the '02 Camry is more reliable than the '02 Monte
Carlo.

That is the buyer's decision to make. The reliability survey merely
provides him with some information to consider in making that
decision.

It isn't psychosis when it is backed up by fact. The reliability
survey supports this generalization and, more importantly, provides
specifics about which Japanese and American cars are most reliable and
which are least reliable. That the marketplace adjusts resale values
to reflect these facts is not a defect in the survey.

It also encourages owners to hold onto the cars longer (which is one
reason why resale values are higher.) My income demographics dictate
that I should be driving a two-year-old Mercedes, but I am happy with
my 14-year-old GS-R. Having the savings in the bank is just a bonus.
Does my GS-R cost more to maintain than a five-year-old Monte Carlo?
Probably. But if I had a Monte Carlo, I would be looking to dump it
because it is a boring piece of shit.

To summarize, it sounds like you are claiming that the Consumer
Reports Auto Reliability is "pure rubbish" because it *might* be more
economical to own a cheap, boring piece of crap.

 

Good example. For the first few years, Saturns commanded impressive
resale values - better than Hondas. The cars were in high demand,
sold only at full MSRP and few were available on the used market.
After problems started developing on 3 - 4 year-old cars, the resale
prices dropped like a rock.

The survey does affect market value in one way though. It informs the
market of facts which would otherwise be obscure. Not that we
wouldn't have figured out that Toyotas and Hondas were more reliable
by now. But the survey increases the certainty and precision of that
knowledge by a couple orders of magnitude.

 

It might be a better buy for $5k than GS-R precisely
because it is a boring piece of shit!
If you have $5k and are looking for reliable transportation
fun should not be a part of the equation at all.
The fact that the car is a boring piece of shit means
that it was less likely to have been owned by someone
who did not take the living daylights out of it and sold it
when there was nothing left to milk.

Yep. The way the data is tabulated it's meaningless to
people on the budget like the OP. So he went for the fun and was had.
You just have to face the reality that quite a few people
out there don't want to or can't afford to spend much
on their cars. My point was that if they want reliable transport
they'd better buy a mistake of judgement from someone who
bought a boring piece of shit more recently than someone
who bought a funster and held to it longer... until it
started to fall apart.

 

So you've only had it for 1 of it's many 11 years.
It could have many more hard poorly maintained miles than you would ever
believe.
You need to buy such an old car from an old original owner who maintains
it properly, such as me, but my '95 LH Chrysler is not for sale. <

 

I agree. A Civic would be a much better choice for such a buyer for a
number of reasons - fuel economy, regular gas, less likely the
previous owner drove it hard, possibly cheaper parts, etc. with
reliability at least as good as the GS-R. However, my point is that
the Civic like the GS-R is a car you will be likely to keep for a long
time because it is reliable and high quality.

Right, buy the Civic.

It is not meaningless to the OP, it is just one piece of information.
It is a reliability survey, not an "absolute cheapest cost of
ownership survey." It is also not a stupidity inhibitor. By your
reasoning, I guess it is a good thing that Mercedes have such a lousy
reliability record because otherwise someone on a budget might
mistakenly by a $50,000 used Mercedes.

How much fun was he looking to have with a 10-year-old Accord? The
mistake he made was buying a 10-year-old car and thinking that it
wouldn't need any repairs. I also suspect he needs to find a new
mechanic. Three radiators and O2 sensors? One maybe.

The problem is there is no such thing as a cheap car. If you only
have $1000 - 2000 to spend you have to expect to spend money on
repairs wether it is a 7-year-old Taurus or a 10-year-old Accord.
Minimizing the repair cost is a matter of thorough inspection and
luck.

The problem is that pieces of shit are prone to break downs - even if
they aren't 10-years-old and were driven gently and maintained
properly. And after you fix them they are still pieces of shit.

 

OK. that seems really unreasonable. I would now check to make sure that car wasn't a flood car
from Katrina or something.

 

Sorry,
I am going to join in on the bashing of Consumer Reports reliability rankings.
They are worthless. For one thing they cover too short a time.

JD Power survey seems practically fraudulent as they rank "initial
quality"...ie, defects when delivered...while that is nice...it doesn't tell you
if the transmission falls out at 6,000 miles.

Go to a very busy independent mechanic and ask him what breaks the least and
don't forget to get an opinion on how relatively expensive the replacement parts
are, you will be surprised.
Second best ask a lot of people who would qualify as "car enthusiasts" and ask
them for their experiences.

I wish I knew of a good place to find reliability rankings with published
criteria that I could believe in. If anyone does know of one please tell me.
..
Norm