Which Accord would you buy?

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.

 

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 !

 

if the mileage is verifiable, then the 89.

 

From: (Heywhatsupdooddd)

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.

 

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.

 

if the mileage is verifiable, then the 89.

It's verified by Carfax.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.