Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:

-- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
revealed: (a)
Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
trouble.

-- Most persistent major mechanical problems have been poor
air conditioning and suspect CV joints. I watch especially
for blown head gaskets. So far for around half a dozen cars
I have actually examined: no residue on the oil cap; oil in
the reservoir; smell from exhaust pipe; white puff from
exhaust pipe.

-- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers do
not like to deal in cars that do not involve financing, so
low price beaters generally are not advertised for sale by
them. Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
cars are sold at auction? Craigslist people have all been
good about meeting at the designated time and test driving
(though I almost always have a friend with me). Craigs list
sellers where I am have been mostly but not entirely honest,
at least insofar as the carfax checks indicate.

-- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to look
for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used dealer. A
fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's list at a mom
n' pop used car dealership. I went to see it. Great body,
engine compartment sparkled, fluids looked clean and topped
off; but no muffler; no radio; check engine light was on;
windshield was cracked, miles advertised were 124k and
carfax said it was in fact over 271k miles a year ago. I am
considering making a very low offer (after telling the
dealership about the flawed title tampered odometer) just
for the shell.

Further advice?

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:iSQ7k.1145$oY2.648@newsfe21.lga...
> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:

What kind of money are we talking about here?
In other words, how much do you want to spend
and where are you located? Maybe I will have
a car for you.... :-)

> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
> days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
> revealed: (a)
> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
> it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
> how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
> trouble.

With the car that old I would say actual millage is not
as important as the current technical condition of the car.

> -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
> regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
> autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers do
> not like to deal in cars that do not involve financing, so
> low price beaters generally are not advertised for sale by
> them. Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
> advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
> VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
> when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
> and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
> cars are sold at auction?

I am not surprised new car dealers do not keep these cars.
The car you are looking for probably is worth much less than
a 1000 and takes the same amount of space on the dealer parking
lot as tha 20k one. Also, on average it will look horrible
compared to new cars, so new car dealer selling not old used
cars does not want to clutter his parking lot with trash like
top down rusted 1989 honda civic.

> -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to look
> for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used dealer. A
> fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's list at a mom
> n' pop used car dealership. I went to see it. Great body,
> engine compartment sparkled, fluids looked clean and topped
> off; but no muffler; no radio; check engine light was on;
> windshield was cracked, miles advertised were 124k and
> carfax said it was in fact over 271k miles a year ago. I am
> considering making a very low offer (after telling the
> dealership about the flawed title tampered odometer) just
> for the shell.

What do you consider a "low offer" for such a car?
Junkyard is probably paying between 100-200 dolars
for a car which can be driven to the yard... Slightly
less if it has to be towed. If you see a car on
some dealer's parking lot than it means the owner
hopes to get much more for his trashy car than he
could get from the junkyard.

> Further advice?

Look at your local junk yard. Sometimes they have
cars these old in quite good condition and you
might score good find this way...
Of course it is junk yard, so the car will not
look good, guaranteed.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
>> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>
> What kind of money are we talking about here?
> In other words, how much do you want to spend
> and where are you located? Maybe I will have
> a car for you.... :-)

Write me where you are located. :-)

>> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for
>> 30 days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked,
>> it revealed: (a)
>> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
>> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
>> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a
>> third; it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports
>> attest to how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure
>> saved me some trouble.
>
> With the car that old I would say actual millage is not
> as important as the current technical condition of the
> car.

A 90s Civic engine with 100k-125k miles on to me likely has
at least 75k miles more left on the engine.

A 90s Civic engine with 200k and up miles on it to me may go
at any time. If I knew the owner and the maintenance record,
I might feel a little differently.

There's a huge difference in risk. This is all we can talk
about here, ya know, probabilities.


>> -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
>> regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
>> autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers
>> do not like to deal in cars that do not involve
>> financing, so low price beaters generally are not
>> advertised for sale by them. Though oddly, on my Carfax
>> checks, there's always an advertisement by dealers for a
>> 199- Civic, complete with VIN. Then I call the dealer,
>> and the car is not there. Maybe when a car is traded in,
>> carfax automatically retrieves it and its filter puts the
>> ad up? But in fact most of these cars are sold at
>> auction?
>
> I am not surprised new car dealers do not keep these cars.
> The car you are looking for probably is worth much less
> than
> a 1000 and takes the same amount of space on the dealer
> parking
> lot as tha 20k one.

Kelly blue book puts them at $1200-2500, depending on
condition, for private party. Retail is usually more.

The dealers do not keep them because financing generally is
not done with such a low cost.

> Also, on average it will look horrible
> compared to new cars, so new car dealer selling not old
> used
> cars does not want to clutter his parking lot with trash
> like top down rusted 1989 honda civic.

I am sure you are right. :-)

>> -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to
>> look for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used
>> dealer. A fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's
>> list at a mom n' pop used car dealership. I went to see
>> it. Great body, engine compartment sparkled, fluids
>> looked clean and topped off; but no muffler; no radio;
>> check engine light was on; windshield was cracked, miles
>> advertised were 124k and carfax said it was in fact over
>> 271k miles a year ago. I am considering making a very low
>> offer (after telling the dealership about the flawed
>> title tampered odometer) just for the shell.
>
> What do you consider a "low offer" for such a car?
> Junkyard is probably paying between 100-200 dolars
> for a car which can be driven to the yard... Slightly
> less if it has to be towed. If you see a car on some
> dealer's parking lot than it means the owner hopes to get
> much more for his trashy car than he
> could get from the junkyard.

Well sure. Fortunately Craig's List and Ebay often have
shells for sale, so I know the asking price for a good shell
is around $500 to $1000.

>> Further advice?
>
> Look at your local junk yard. Sometimes they have
> cars these old in quite good condition and you might score
> good find this way...
> Of course it is junk yard, so the car will not
> look good, guaranteed.

Indeed there is one local junkyard that buys running cars
and sells them. I started checking it regularly a few weeks
ago. Many of the cars there do not look too bad and could be
fixed up nicely.

I saw such a humdinger a few hours ago. 90 Civic. Lifted the
hood, and the first thing I always check is the coolant
reservoir. Well huh, the cap is already unfastened. It's
overfilled and bubbles are coming out the tube right before
my very eyes. First blown head gasket yada I have seen. I
ended the inspection there saying I would not risk it.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>>> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
>>> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>> What kind of money are we talking about here?
>> In other words, how much do you want to spend
>> and where are you located? Maybe I will have
>> a car for you.... :-)
>
> Write me where you are located. :-)
>
>>> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for
>>> 30 days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked,
>>> it revealed: (a)
>>> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
>>> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
>>> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a
>>> third; it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports
>>> attest to how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure
>>> saved me some trouble.
>> With the car that old I would say actual millage is not
>> as important as the current technical condition of the
>> car.
>
> A 90s Civic engine with 100k-125k miles on to me likely has
> at least 75k miles more left on the engine.
>
> A 90s Civic engine with 200k and up miles on it to me may go
> at any time. If I knew the owner and the maintenance record,
> I might feel a little differently.
>
> There's a huge difference in risk. This is all we can talk
> about here, ya know, probabilities.

i think Pszemol is dead right on this one. there comes a point where
mileage is irrelevant and you're buying the car for the platform, not
any one single component. and with replacement jdm
engines/transmissions being so cheap and plentiful, the condition of the
original is not very important - unlike the quality of the interior
which is pretty much vital.


>
>
>>> -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
>>> regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
>>> autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers
>>> do not like to deal in cars that do not involve
>>> financing, so low price beaters generally are not
>>> advertised for sale by them. Though oddly, on my Carfax
>>> checks, there's always an advertisement by dealers for a
>>> 199- Civic, complete with VIN. Then I call the dealer,
>>> and the car is not there. Maybe when a car is traded in,
>>> carfax automatically retrieves it and its filter puts the
>>> ad up? But in fact most of these cars are sold at
>>> auction?
>> I am not surprised new car dealers do not keep these cars.
>> The car you are looking for probably is worth much less
>> than
>> a 1000 and takes the same amount of space on the dealer
>> parking
>> lot as tha 20k one.
>
> Kelly blue book puts them at $1200-2500, depending on
> condition, for private party. Retail is usually more.

i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the bay
area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for them.
even harder to find now that gas prices are high.


>
> The dealers do not keep them because financing generally is
> not done with such a low cost.
>
>> Also, on average it will look horrible
>> compared to new cars, so new car dealer selling not old
>> used
>> cars does not want to clutter his parking lot with trash
>> like top down rusted 1989 honda civic.
>
> I am sure you are right. :-)
>
>>> -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to
>>> look for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used
>>> dealer. A fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's
>>> list at a mom n' pop used car dealership. I went to see
>>> it. Great body, engine compartment sparkled, fluids
>>> looked clean and topped off; but no muffler; no radio;
>>> check engine light was on; windshield was cracked, miles
>>> advertised were 124k and carfax said it was in fact over
>>> 271k miles a year ago. I am considering making a very low
>>> offer (after telling the dealership about the flawed
>>> title tampered odometer) just for the shell.
>> What do you consider a "low offer" for such a car?
>> Junkyard is probably paying between 100-200 dolars
>> for a car which can be driven to the yard... Slightly
>> less if it has to be towed. If you see a car on some
>> dealer's parking lot than it means the owner hopes to get
>> much more for his trashy car than he
>> could get from the junkyard.
>
> Well sure. Fortunately Craig's List and Ebay often have
> shells for sale, so I know the asking price for a good shell
> is around $500 to $1000.
>
>>> Further advice?
>> Look at your local junk yard. Sometimes they have
>> cars these old in quite good condition and you might score
>> good find this way...
>> Of course it is junk yard, so the car will not
>> look good, guaranteed.
>
> Indeed there is one local junkyard that buys running cars
> and sells them. I started checking it regularly a few weeks
> ago. Many of the cars there do not look too bad and could be
> fixed up nicely.
>
> I saw such a humdinger a few hours ago. 90 Civic. Lifted the
> hood, and the first thing I always check is the coolant
> reservoir. Well huh, the cap is already unfastened. It's
> overfilled and bubbles are coming out the tube right before
> my very eyes. First blown head gasket yada I have seen. I
> ended the inspection there saying I would not risk it.

buy it, but pay a price that reflects the problem. engines are fixable.
trashed interiors and bent bodies are a giant pita.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the bay
> area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for them.
> even harder to find now that gas prices are high.


If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
for somebody who is looking for an economy car...

I can hardly imagine what good could come from
buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
for inspections spending money and time to find one.
Then, when you find one it will not be over...
Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
*will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
towing costs..

Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
> for inspections spending money and time to find one.

Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
should not buy such old cars.

Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
stand to save a lot of money.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the
>> bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for
>> them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>
>
> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...

the price is being bid up by people wanting gas sippers as well - even
more demand than usual. but you can still get a sedan for under $1k,
it's the hatchbacks that are in demand.


>
> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
> towing costs..

eh? "constant fear"??? statistically, a new car has a greater
probability of failure than one that's in the middle of its life.
[bathtub curve]. at 176k miles, my civic is in the middle of its life.
there are certain weakness in this vintage civic, main relay being the
most notable, but it doesn't cost much to sort that stuff out.


>
> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)

as elle says, if you know these vehicles, you can save a bunch of dough.
my 2000 civic depreciated at about $1,100 per year that i owned it. i
couldn't spend that much a year in maintenance on my 89 if i wanted to.
and the 89 has APpreciated in value since i bought it, not DEpreciated.

and that's not accounting for the fact that certain models are better
than others. imo, the 88-91 civic/crx is about the best car honda ever
produced. i've tested/owned subsequent models of civic and they neither
handle as well, nor are as comfortable as these first "real deal"
4-wheel wishbone civics. so that's why i drive them - they're the best.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net>
said:

> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around for inspections
>> spending money and time to find one.
>
> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
> should not buy such old cars.
>
> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
> stand to save a lot of money.

It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let him fix it up for
the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
Elle wrote
>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>> should not buy such old cars.
>>
>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on
>> them
>> stand to save a lot of money.
>
> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let
> him fix it up for
> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver
> for anyone.

For anyone who has taken their c. 1990 Honda beyond 200k
miles, a second Honda with 120k miles original engine or
163k miles body and 70k mile engine can result in a daily
driver.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net>
> said:
>
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around for inspections
>>> spending money and time to find one.
>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>> should not buy such old cars.
>>
>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
>> stand to save a lot of money.
>
> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let him fix it up for
> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.
>

rubbish. mine's a daily driver. and at 40mpg freeway, you can bet
that's serious too.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:ssGdnUWDyt21PPzVnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the
>>> bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for
>>> them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>>
>>
>> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
>> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
>> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...
>
> the price is being bid up by people wanting gas sippers as well - even
> more demand than usual. but you can still get a sedan for under $1k,
> it's the hatchbacks that are in demand.

I see...

>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
>> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
>> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
>> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
>> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
>> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
>> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
>> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
>> towing costs..
>
> eh? "constant fear"??? statistically, a new car has a greater
> probability of failure than one that's in the middle of its life.
> [bathtub curve]. at 176k miles, my civic is in the middle of its life.
> there are certain weakness in this vintage civic, main relay being the
> most notable, but it doesn't cost much to sort that stuff out.

Main relay, or - bigger problem like head gasket.
I am seeing blown head gasket the major fear of
older civic owners compared to other japaneese cars.

>> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
>> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)
>
> as elle says, if you know these vehicles, you can save a bunch of dough.
> my 2000 civic depreciated at about $1,100 per year that i owned it. i
> couldn't spend that much a year in maintenance on my 89 if i wanted to.
> and the 89 has APpreciated in value since i bought it, not DEpreciated.

But compare the benefits of driving 2000 year model year with 89.
Yes, it is more expensive but it is a better car overall.

> and that's not accounting for the fact that certain models are better
> than others. imo, the 88-91 civic/crx is about the best car honda ever
> produced. i've tested/owned subsequent models of civic and they neither
> handle as well, nor are as comfortable as these first "real deal"
> 4-wheel wishbone civics. so that's why i drive them - they're the best.

I am glad you are so enthusiastic about this little car :-)

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9AC7E48A9E9ADthefrogprince@69.28.186.120.. .
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net>
> said:
>
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around for inspections
>>> spending money and time to find one.
>>
>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>> should not buy such old cars.
>>
>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
>> stand to save a lot of money.
>
> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let him fix it up for
> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.

That was exactly my feeling about it.
I would not take my family for a ride in anything '89
especially if I did not owned it for the last 10 years
and I am not really sure what the previous owner did
to the car - this is the case when you BUY that old car.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:_Aq8k.2171$%q.968@newsfe24.lga...
> "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
> Elle wrote
>>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>>> should not buy such old cars.
>>>
>>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on
>>> them
>>> stand to save a lot of money.
>>
>> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let
>> him fix it up for
>> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver
>> for anyone.
>
> For anyone who has taken their c. 1990 Honda beyond 200k
> miles, a second Honda with 120k miles original engine or
> 163k miles body and 70k mile engine can result in a daily
> driver.

I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
No head gasket problems or any other major things to worry.
But I KNOW THIS CAR! Every day of its history since May'98.
It does not mean I would seek a camry that old from a stranger.

No matter how much time you spend inspecting the car at the
seller location there will always be something that can
surprise you after the purchase and cost you in a long run...

Look yourself at your original post - how many cars you
have already seen and rejected? How much time and gas
you spent driving there to look for them? How long more
you are going to look for this crazy-cool'89 civic deal?

Is it really worth so much trouble? :-)
Maybe is not rational anymore but just emotional? ;-)

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:as6dnTxMQuzWo__VnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> rubbish. mine's a daily driver. and at 40mpg freeway, you can bet
> that's serious too.

Freeway 40mpg? I think it is just average for a small car like civic.
You should achive it easily with modern models of nissan sentra.

I make 32mpg easily on my 4-cyl 2004 accord coupe EX-L.
And it is not just freeway for me, its probably mixed 80/20.

My 1995 camry does not perform as good anymore @ 246k miles.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net>
said:

> "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
> Elle wrote
>>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>>> should not buy such old cars.
>>>
>>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them stand to
>>> save a lot of money.
>>
>> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let
>> him fix it up for
>> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.
>
> For anyone who has taken their c. 1990 Honda beyond 200k
> miles, a second Honda with 120k miles original engine or
> 163k miles body and 70k mile engine can result in a daily
> driver.

Sure, but that's moving the goal posts.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:ssGdnUWDyt21PPzVnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the
>>>> bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for
>>>> them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
>>> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
>>> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...
>>
>> the price is being bid up by people wanting gas sippers as well - even
>> more demand than usual. but you can still get a sedan for under $1k,
>> it's the hatchbacks that are in demand.
>
> I see...
>
>>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
>>> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
>>> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
>>> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
>>> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
>>> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
>>> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
>>> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
>>> towing costs..
>>
>> eh? "constant fear"??? statistically, a new car has a greater
>> probability of failure than one that's in the middle of its life.
>> [bathtub curve]. at 176k miles, my civic is in the middle of its
>> life. there are certain weakness in this vintage civic, main relay
>> being the most notable, but it doesn't cost much to sort that stuff out.
>
> Main relay, or - bigger problem like head gasket.
> I am seeing blown head gasket the major fear of
> older civic owners compared to other japaneese cars.

in my experience, gasket only fails after the radiator cracks and the
motor cooks. the gasket goes about a year later. moral of the story,
replace the radiator every 10 years.



>
>>> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
>>> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)
>>
>> as elle says, if you know these vehicles, you can save a bunch of
>> dough. my 2000 civic depreciated at about $1,100 per year that i
>> owned it. i couldn't spend that much a year in maintenance on my 89
>> if i wanted to. and the 89 has APpreciated in value since i bought
>> it, not DEpreciated.
>
> But compare the benefits of driving 2000 year model year with 89.
> Yes, it is more expensive but it is a better car overall.

i strongly disagree. my 89 is a much superior vehicle to the 2000.
better handling, better interior, better ergonomics, better power to
weight...

only thing going for the 2000 is full electronic control of the
automatic transmission, but the benefit of that is marginal, especially
if the mechanical auto transmission is properly adjusted and has the
right fluid.


>
>> and that's not accounting for the fact that certain models are better
>> than others. imo, the 88-91 civic/crx is about the best car honda
>> ever produced. i've tested/owned subsequent models of civic and they
>> neither handle as well, nor are as comfortable as these first "real
>> deal" 4-wheel wishbone civics. so that's why i drive them - they're
>> the best.
>
> I am glad you are so enthusiastic about this little car :-)

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
> news:_Aq8k.2171$%q.968@newsfe24.lga...
>> "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
>> Elle wrote
>>>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>>>> should not buy such old cars.
>>>>
>>>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
>>>> stand to save a lot of money.
>>>
>>> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let him fix it
>>> up for
>>> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.
>>
>> For anyone who has taken their c. 1990 Honda beyond 200k miles, a
>> second Honda with 120k miles original engine or 163k miles body and
>> 70k mile engine can result in a daily driver.
>
> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
> No head gasket problems or any other major things to worry.
> But I KNOW THIS CAR! Every day of its history since May'98.
> It does not mean I would seek a camry that old from a stranger.
>
> No matter how much time you spend inspecting the car at the
> seller location there will always be something that can
> surprise you after the purchase and cost you in a long run...
>
> Look yourself at your original post - how many cars you
> have already seen and rejected? How much time and gas
> you spent driving there to look for them? How long more
> you are going to look for this crazy-cool'89 civic deal?
>
> Is it really worth so much trouble? :-)
> Maybe is not rational anymore but just emotional? ;-)

but that's exactly the situation with your rejection of the older
vehicle! it can be completely rational to purchase it if you know what
you're doing and the price is right!

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:as6dnTxMQuzWo__VnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> rubbish. mine's a daily driver. and at 40mpg freeway, you can bet
>> that's serious too.
>
> Freeway 40mpg? I think it is just average for a small car like civic.
> You should achive it easily with modern models of nissan sentra.
>
> I make 32mpg easily on my 4-cyl 2004 accord coupe EX-L.
> And it is not just freeway for me, its probably mixed 80/20.
>
> My 1995 camry does not perform as good anymore @ 246k miles.

there's a bunch of things you can do that might help. egr valve, tw
sensor, valve lash... - it needs a little love.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
> No head gasket problems or any other major things to
> worry.
> But I KNOW THIS CAR!

Agreed, not knowing the history is one of the drawbacks of
buying a secondhand (or thirdhand or more) car. Carfax
helps a lot. I reject a car with too many owners in too
short a time, for example, of which there are many out
there, at least on Craigs List where I am.

I am seeing consistently that the little c. 1990 Civic
hatchbacks feel somewhat too much like a death trap. The DXs
and base model hatchbacks do not have power steering, plus
the suspension bushings generally seem worn (though I could
fix this), so the road feel is generally lousy. Then too
they are small and cramped. Great mileage, but I like
feeling a little more like I am not the smallest, most
vulnerable vehicle on the road.

Only one of the circa 1990 Civics I have seen had what I
would call very good a/c. It also had a great body and 166k
mileage, with only two owners. I made an offer on it, but as
JBeam observes, offering more than KBB was not quite enough,
and it got snatched at a significantly higher price before I
could counter. I was testing the waters. Now I am seeing
good, newer c. 1995 Civics sell within two hours on Craigs
List.

Having driven a few 95-97 Civics now, I am leaning towards
spending more and making this second car the one that will
replace my 91 Civic in a few years. Meanwhile my friend will
use the newer one for commuting in summer, then use my 91
Civic (no a/c) the rest of the year.

Like you were saying when comparing cars, the newer ones
have a much much better feel. I am not in a rush. Which
means I end up saving as much as a few thousand dollars.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:g3r112.2ao.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in
>> the bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go
>> nuts for them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>
>
> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...
>
> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
> towing costs..
>
> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)

California cars rarely rust. There are many older vehicles available
that are in very good physical condition. If well maintained, they
can be fairly trouble free vehicles......

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
>> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
>> No head gasket problems or any other major things to
>> worry.
>> But I KNOW THIS CAR!
>
> Agreed, not knowing the history is one of the drawbacks of
> buying a secondhand (or thirdhand or more) car. Carfax
> helps a lot. I reject a car with too many owners in too
> short a time, for example, of which there are many out
> there, at least on Craigs List where I am.
>
> I am seeing consistently that the little c. 1990 Civic
> hatchbacks feel somewhat too much like a death trap.

what an odd statement! they're only 27cm shorter than your 4-door
sedan, and they both have an identical wheelbase. the only reason they
could feel worse is if something is wrong.

> The DXs
> and base model hatchbacks do not have power steering,

the automatics have power steering.


> plus
> the suspension bushings generally seem worn

that may be a valid point. i forget that i replaced the bushings and
the shocks on both my current cars as soon as i got them, so they both
drive like new.


> (though I could
> fix this), so the road feel is generally lousy. Then too
> they are small and cramped.

how are they different to your sedan? and i can tell you for fact,
there is more interior room in my 89 than there in in the subsequent
generations. get a tape measure out.


> Great mileage, but I like
> feeling a little more like I am not the smallest, most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road.
>
> Only one of the circa 1990 Civics I have seen had what I
> would call very good a/c. It also had a great body and 166k
> mileage, with only two owners. I made an offer on it, but as
> JBeam observes, offering more than KBB was not quite enough,
> and it got snatched at a significantly higher price before I
> could counter. I was testing the waters. Now I am seeing
> good, newer c. 1995 Civics sell within two hours on Craigs
> List.
>
> Having driven a few 95-97 Civics now, I am leaning towards
> spending more and making this second car the one that will
> replace my 91 Civic in a few years. Meanwhile my friend will
> use the newer one for commuting in summer, then use my 91
> Civic (no a/c) the rest of the year.
>
> Like you were saying when comparing cars, the newer ones
> have a much much better feel. I am not in a rush. Which
> means I end up saving as much as a few thousand dollars.
>
>

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

In article <iSQ7k.1145$oY2.648@newsfe21.lga>,
honda.lioness@spamnocox.net says...

> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>
> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
> days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
> revealed: (a)
> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
> it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
> how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
> trouble.

[...]

> Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
> advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
> VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
> when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
> and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
> cars are sold at auction?

I've found Carfax to be quite useful on several occasions in the past.
The $35 30-day membership is cheap compared to the cost of a car, and
the Carfax data isn't always 100% accurate or complete, but as long as
you recognize that, it works pretty well for a quick-and-dirty
assessment of past problems.

One of those Carfax dealer ads is how I recently acquired my '00 Civic
Si. I'd been looking for a clean, unmolested '99-'00 Si for a couple of
months with limited results - most of the ones I ran across via
Craigslist or another local forum were either ragged out from rough
treatment, had high mileage with no way to verify the service history
(or lack thereof), or had modifications I wasn't thrilled about. I'm not
entirely averse to modded cars when they're well thought out and done to
a professional standard, but those kinds of cars tend to be the
exception rather than the rule.

Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was considering
going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something like "you
might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic Si with only
53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone and called
them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused initially when I asked
about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly offered that they
still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned out that
they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days previously. It was
still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, was filthy
inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until they'd checked
it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever having been
wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and the interior
was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned up quite
nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the lot. The only
flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds slightly. There's a
TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse gear cluster
(and probably the synchros), but given how much that's likely to cost,
I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

Anyway, your supposition about Carfax automatically finding cars like
this is probably correct - it certainly hadn't been advertised anywhere
by the dealer, and the various salespeople I talked to were all
mystified as to how I'd found out about it. This particular dealer
claimed that their policy was to never buy cars at auction, but they
didn't say whether that policy also extended to selling cars at auction.

Dave

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote
> I've found Carfax to be quite useful on several occasions
> in the past.
> The $35 30-day membership is cheap compared to the cost of
> a car, and
> the Carfax data isn't always 100% accurate or complete,
> but as long as
> you recognize that, it works pretty well for a
> quick-and-dirty
> assessment of past problems.
>
> One of those Carfax dealer ads is how I recently acquired
> my '00 Civic
> Si. I'd been looking for a clean, unmolested '99-'00 Si
> for a couple of
> months with limited results - most of the ones I ran
> across via
> Craigslist or another local forum were either ragged out
> from rough
> treatment, had high mileage with no way to verify the
> service history
> (or lack thereof), or had modifications I wasn't thrilled
> about. I'm not
> entirely averse to modded cars when they're well thought
> out and done to
> a professional standard, but those kinds of cars tend to
> be the
> exception rather than the rule.

I am finding this problem with Craig's List, too: Too many
darn kids with their crappy mods selling cars owned by a
zillion people already.

At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
(say 70k - 170k miles).

> Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was
> considering
> going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something
> like "you
> might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic
> Si with only
> 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone
> and called
> them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused
> initially when I asked
> about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly
> offered that they
> still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned
> out that
> they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days
> previously. It was
> still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing,
> was filthy
> inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until
> they'd checked
> it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever
> having been
> wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and
> the interior
> was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned
> up quite
> nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the
> lot. The only
> flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds
> slightly. There's a
> TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse
> gear cluster
> (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's
> likely to cost,
> I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

I am trying to pounce on these, too. Gotta pay dealer used
prices, but as I say above I may be willing to at this
point. Every time I call the dealer rep says it's been sold
or they have to check on it. I will stick with it, though.
The dealer cars seem to always check out with pretty clean
titles on Carfax.

I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing
the ads pop up.

Good post. Thanks.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in message news:MPG.22cf17112840dc9198a23a@208.90.168.18...
> Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was considering
> going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something like "you
> might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic Si with only
> 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone and called
> them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused initially when I asked
> about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly offered that they
> still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned out that
> they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days previously. It was
> still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, was filthy
> inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until they'd checked
> it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever having been
> wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and the interior
> was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned up quite
> nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the lot. The only
> flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds slightly. There's a
> TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse gear cluster
> (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's likely to cost,
> I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

Dave, I have bad news to you... I got a 94 sentra with same issue on
5th gear and after about 10 months there was no 5th gear anymore...

I hope you did not pay a lot for it.

Good luck!

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
> (say 70k - 170k miles).

Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
Not mentioning 1989 :-)

> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing
> the ads pop up.

There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
when the car shows up listed in the range of model
years / trims you selected...
My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:g43c1l.4m8.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
> news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
>> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
>> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
>> (say 70k - 170k miles).
>
> Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
> for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
> model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
> Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
> on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
> Not mentioning 1989 :-)

? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is
rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning
(it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow.
It too checks out with Carfax.


>> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
>> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and
>> seeing the ads pop up.
>
> There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
> when the car shows up listed in the range of model
> years / trims you selected...
> My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.

I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems
to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers
do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold,
etc.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:y5f9k.9070$rH1.7031@newsfe20.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
> news:g43c1l.4m8.0@poczta.onet.pl...
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
>> news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
>>> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
>>> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
>>> (say 70k - 170k miles).
>>
>> Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
>> for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
>> model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
>> Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
>> on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
>> Not mentioning 1989 :-)
>
> ? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is
> rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning
> (it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow.
> It too checks out with Carfax.

I am not doubting cars like these are there on the market...
You might want to wonder if 1995 with 55k miles is real or not.

Inconsistent is that you call 70k a "high-mileage" in the
range of model years you are considering for purchase.
Maybe I am little strange, but for me 95 model year,
13-14 years old car with 177k miles (12k/year) would be
low or average mileage car. 140k or anything elss than that
would be extremely low mileage for an old car like this.

>>> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
>>> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and
>>> seeing the ads pop up.
>>
>> There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
>> when the car shows up listed in the range of model
>> years / trims you selected...
>> My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.
>
> I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems
> to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers
> do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold,
> etc.

I am not talking about search engine.
I am talking about automated system emailing you a list
of new cars EVERY day to your inbox. Call their support phone
line and ask for it if you cannot find it on their website.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Elle wrote:
> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>
> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
> days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
> revealed: (a)
> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
> it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
> how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
> trouble.
>
> -- Most persistent major mechanical problems have been poor
> air conditioning and suspect CV joints. I watch especially
> for blown head gaskets. So far for around half a dozen cars
> I have actually examined: no residue on the oil cap; oil in
> the reservoir; smell from exhaust pipe; white puff from
> exhaust pipe.
>
> -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
> regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
> autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers do
> not like to deal in cars that do not involve financing, so
> low price beaters generally are not advertised for sale by
> them. Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
> advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
> VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
> when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
> and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
> cars are sold at auction? Craigslist people have all been
> good about meeting at the designated time and test driving
> (though I almost always have a friend with me). Craigs list
> sellers where I am have been mostly but not entirely honest,
> at least insofar as the carfax checks indicate.
>
> -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to look
> for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used dealer. A
> fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's list at a mom
> n' pop used car dealership. I went to see it. Great body,
> engine compartment sparkled, fluids looked clean and topped
> off; but no muffler; no radio; check engine light was on;
> windshield was cracked, miles advertised were 124k and
> carfax said it was in fact over 271k miles a year ago. I am
> considering making a very low offer (after telling the
> dealership about the flawed title tampered odometer) just
> for the shell.
>
> Further advice?
>
>

one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i
consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage -
lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on
the ex and si models, not the lower models.

i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i
> consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage -
> lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on
> the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>
> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.

Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?

Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags?
Would you prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?

How would seat belts work after 20 years of service?
Are you going to replace them with new ones?

Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band)
then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests?
Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test
performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year?

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what
>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage
>> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars
>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>
>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
>> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
>> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.
>
> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?

do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if
you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read what
it says about that.

abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something
like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing
the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the
vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll
consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking
and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks.


>
> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?

i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of
gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory,
not airbags. just like in race cars.


>
> How would seat belts work after 20 years of service?
> Are you going to replace them with new ones?

depends whether they work or not! as a matter of fact, i /have/
replaced a seat belt with a retractor problem, but that's just me. the
inertial lock still worked ok.


>
> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?

mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.


> If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band)
> then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests?
> Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test
> performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year?

if it were rusty enough to be structural, i either wouldn't drive it or
i would have it repaired. but it depends of the nature of the beast.
cosmetic rust, say at the bottom of a door or the bottom of a wheel
well, means nothing to crash safety. structural rust is the only kind
that truly matters and, as you may imagine, it takes a /lot/ more to
rust out thick structural components than thin cosmetic ones.

i recall seeing some crash testing of rusty vehicles some years ago, and
the researchers were "surprised" to find that the rusted out boxes of
crap they'd found were no worse in crashes than the unrusted ones. i
guess that, like you, they hadn't bothered to think about the facts.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:B4ydnQX8ksBC1PvVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what
>>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage
>>> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars
>>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>>
>>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
>>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
>>> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
>>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
>>> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
>>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
>>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
>>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
>>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
>>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.
>>
>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>
> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
> stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if
> you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read
> what it says about that.

Don't be such arrogant!
I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking.

In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without one.
Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.

> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something
> like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing
> the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the
> vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll
> consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking
> and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks.

Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle.
She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little
more educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...

>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>
> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of
> gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory,
> not airbags. just like in race cars.

This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.

Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
with air bags or a death trap without one :-)

>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>
> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
> no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.

I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints, etc.
Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle.
Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for
> yourself but for Elle.
> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver
> little more educated in benefits of modern car safety
> systems than you...

Not to contradict you, but to get out my puny view: I have
been restricting my search to older cars partly (very small
part) because I do not want ABS. ABS is harder to maintain;
has more that can go wrong; and I do not see significant
advantage from a safety standpoint.

I have always had a car without ABS.

I would prefer airbags but I am not requiring them.

> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage
> rust, ball joints, etc.
> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are
> addressed to Elle.

I think JBeam is recalling, correctly, that I am in the
southwest. No rust in general, though a few of the cars I
have seen are from up north and show rust.

I finally read the fine print on carfax.com's connection to
dealers: Every time a dealer looks up a vehicle history on
carfax, the lookup goes into their system as a car that
/might/ be traded in or just got sold. I think it would be
luck to run across a Honda through this approach. I really
do not trust the salespeople there to call me as soon as
another 92-95 Civic comes in. They deal in the here and now.
A phone call does not seem to be worth it to them.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
smaller than the sedan. I think the lack of power steering
on the hatch means one feels the road more. It is not as
responsive in feel.

I have also driven a few used sedans besides my own and
consistently felt much better in them compared to the
hatches.

No more, no less, just my opinion.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:B4ydnQX8ksBC1PvVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have
>>>> what i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current
>>>> vintage - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has
>>>> sway bars on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>>>
>>>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive
>>>> [defensive] maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new
>>>> 2000. damned thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89
>>>> that has sway bars as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever
>>>> you point it, no excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you
>>>> have to be careful on the transition between hard left/hard right,
>>>> there was no "safety factor" in near-accident situations like i
>>>> describe. i ended up retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the
>>>> problem, but i would not feel comfortable with one of those vehicles
>>>> in stock configuration, especially as the body is so much heavier
>>>> and thus more susceptible.
>>>
>>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>>
>> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
>> stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances?
>> if you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read
>> what it says about that.
>
> Don't be such arrogant!

what's a "such arrogant"?


> I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking.

you know how it works??? i'd love to read your explanation!

btw, if you learned how to spell "b-r-a-k-i-n-g", you might be more
convincing.


>
> In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without
> one.

what is your opinion based on exactly? it's not facts about braking
distances because abs is not necessarily better in that regard. you
/do/ know about abs systems, right?


> Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
> It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
> together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.
>
>> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do
>> something like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there
>> pressing the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no
>> control of the vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like
>> her, maybe i'll consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know
>> about cadence braking and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with
>> standard brakes thanks.
>
> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle.
> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little more
> educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...
>
>>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>>
>> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern
>> of gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be
>> mandatory, not airbags. just like in race cars.
>
> This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.

buddy, helmets beat air bags every single time.


> Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
> It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
> with air bags or a death trap without one :-)

keep drinking the kool-aid.


>
>>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>>
>> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
>> no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.
>
> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints,
> etc.

i'm not talking cosmetic either - that's why i take the trouble to
specify "s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-a-l" in the part you so carefully snipped but
didn't annotate.

> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle.
> Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.

then you've not been here very long. or you don't know how to use
google. or you're stupid and lazy.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

Elle wrote:
> Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
> Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
> 10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
> Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
> it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
> at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
> smaller than the sedan. I think the lack of power steering
> on the hatch means one feels the road more. It is not as
> responsive in feel.
>
> I have also driven a few used sedans besides my own and
> consistently felt much better in them compared to the
> hatches.
>
> No more, no less, just my opinion.

those 88-91 hatches must have had something wrong if they actually rode
lower. i know my hatch gets some heavy moving duties simply because i
can fit a lot of stuff in it, but the honda ride height spec for both is
the same at 150mm. wheel base for both is 2500mm, wheel track for both
is 1456mm.

all the other differences are simply cosmetic, i.e. length of the sedan
is 4232mm vs 3964mm for the hatch. width is 1674mm vs 1665 for the
hatch, and roof height is 1360mm vs 1333mm for the hatch. dx manual
sedan weighs 2147lbs vs 2088lbs for the hatch.

i think if you're feeling a difference it's simply the fact that you've
done the rear bushings on your car, and the others you've tried haven't
been so lucky. it does make a big change to the way these cars handle.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in news:8Ax9k.6547$i55.1367
@newsfe22.lga:

> Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
> Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
> 10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
> Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
> it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
> at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
> smaller than the sedan.



I actually have a Honda shop manual for this vehicle. It was recently
purchased ($40 on eBay, including shipping) with funds donated for the
www.tegger.com/hondafaq Web site. Thanks very much to all those who have
contributed. Big or small, it all helps.

'88-'91 Civic dimensions are as follows...

Hatchback:
Width 66.3"
Track 57.1" front, 57.3" rear
Wheelbase 98.4"
Overall length 157.1"
Overall height 52.5"

Sedan:
Width 66.7"
Track 57.1" front, 57.3" rear
Wheelbase 98.4"
Overall length 168.8"
Overall height 53.5"

No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just gross weights.

Assuming the diagrams are correctly scaled (not relative to each other,
just within each diagram), all of the 11.7" difference in overall length is
in the rear overhang. The fronts of both body styles appear to be
identical.

What I find interesting here is that the Integra of those same years (which
is Civic-based) has a 2" longer wheelbase in addition to 3.6" increased
length, sedan versus hatchback.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> i think if you're feeling a difference it's simply the
> fact that you've done the rear bushings on your car, and
> the others you've tried haven't been so lucky. it does
> make a big change to the way these cars handle.

I agree this is quite possible. (I know you think it's fact;
I am just expressing my own opinion.) For the record, on my
91 Civic, every single front lower arm bushing and all rear
arm bushings have been changed out. The front has almost new
OEM coils, too.

I am considering a 95 Civic DX with only 120k miles (two
owners, with much documentation of dealer maintenance) on it
that has a really good feel. It has no power steering but
the bushings may be better than the old hatches I have
tried. So my PS theory could be off. Also, I won't rule out
the ball joints (and more suspension) being older and less
well maintained on the hatchbacks I tried. IOW, overall worn
suspension, for one as you and I seem to agree, may be what
I am feeling.

Maybe the old hatches are also molested more than the
sedans. The younger crowd seems to prefer the hatches. The
sedans look like an old lady's car. The hatches, more like a
kid's. Not to deride those driving hatches and paying a
fraction of what the average driver pays for gas, though.
:-)

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just
> gross weights.

Edmunds.com has curb weights. Not saying they are right.
Just saying that's where I got my figures from. IIRC, at
least for my 91 Civic, the Edmunds curb weight and that on
my car's label match.

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in news:pny9k.2619$%q.2364
@newsfe24.lga:

> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just
>> gross weights.
>
> Edmunds.com has curb weights. Not saying they are right.
> Just saying that's where I got my figures from. IIRC, at
> least for my 91 Civic, the Edmunds curb weight and that on
> my car's label match.
>
>


I've often wondered why curb weight isn't reported by Honda in its shop
manuals.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> I've often wondered why curb weight isn't
> reported by Honda in its shop manuals.

I see curb weight in at least one of the UK site's FS
manuals:
http://media.honda.co.uk/car/owner/m...sk301/3-14.pdf