Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.

I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
inspect it. Questions for the group:

How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.

What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
indicating whether the car has been in an accident?

Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
wise?

My used car guide is that at
http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$sf5.1989@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
>



I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular with the tuner
crowd.(D16-series motor)
It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors had his trashed
when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at 3AM.(then they came for
my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)

Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of the door frame are
used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$sf5.1989@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
>



I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular with the tuner
crowd.(D16-series motor)
It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors had his trashed
when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at 3AM.(then they came for
my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)

Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of the door frame are
used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$sf5.1989@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
>



I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular with the tuner
crowd.(D16-series motor)
It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors had his trashed
when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at 3AM.(then they came for
my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)

Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of the door frame are
used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$sf5.1989@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
>



I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular with the tuner
crowd.(D16-series motor)
It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors had his trashed
when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at 3AM.(then they came for
my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)

Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of the door frame are
used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
> Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular
> with the tuner
> crowd.(D16-series motor)
> It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors
> had his trashed
> when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at
> 3AM.(then they came for
> my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)
>
> Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of
> the door frame are
> used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.

Hm, just spoke to the owner of the '99 Civic (DX, as it
turns out). Said he bought it a few months ago with the
intent to sell, so no maintenance records, for one thing.
And I'm sure not wild about the car's vulnerability of which
you speak, either.

Funny but my insurance company said my rates would be lower
with a 99 Civic than with my 91 Civic.

Thanks for the input, Jim.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
> Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular
> with the tuner
> crowd.(D16-series motor)
> It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors
> had his trashed
> when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at
> 3AM.(then they came for
> my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)
>
> Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of
> the door frame are
> used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.

Hm, just spoke to the owner of the '99 Civic (DX, as it
turns out). Said he bought it a few months ago with the
intent to sell, so no maintenance records, for one thing.
And I'm sure not wild about the car's vulnerability of which
you speak, either.

Funny but my insurance company said my rates would be lower
with a 99 Civic than with my 91 Civic.

Thanks for the input, Jim.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
> Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular
> with the tuner
> crowd.(D16-series motor)
> It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors
> had his trashed
> when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at
> 3AM.(then they came for
> my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)
>
> Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of
> the door frame are
> used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.

Hm, just spoke to the owner of the '99 Civic (DX, as it
turns out). Said he bought it a few months ago with the
intent to sell, so no maintenance records, for one thing.
And I'm sure not wild about the car's vulnerability of which
you speak, either.

Funny but my insurance company said my rates would be lower
with a 99 Civic than with my 91 Civic.

Thanks for the input, Jim.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> I'd go for the newest car your budget can afford.
> Although that model ran from 1996-2000,and it's popular
> with the tuner
> crowd.(D16-series motor)
> It's also very easy to break into,FYI;one of my neighbors
> had his trashed
> when the Midnite Auto thieves tried to steal it at
> 3AM.(then they came for
> my 94 GSR...but it's got an alarm,and I own guns!)
>
> Those tabs that guide the Civic's windows at the top of
> the door frame are
> used as levers to pop out the window to gain access.

Hm, just spoke to the owner of the '99 Civic (DX, as it
turns out). Said he bought it a few months ago with the
intent to sell, so no maintenance records, for one thing.
And I'm sure not wild about the car's vulnerability of which
you speak, either.

Funny but my insurance company said my rates would be lower
with a 99 Civic than with my 91 Civic.

Thanks for the input, Jim.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.

specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
not good.

similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.

the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.

specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
not good.

similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.

the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.

specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
not good.

similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.

the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
>
>
i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.

specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
not good.

similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.

the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

jim beam wrote:
>
> Elle wrote:
> > As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> > on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> > the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> > vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> > always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> > will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> > money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
> >
> > I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> > brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> > leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> > 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> > area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> > is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> > far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> > problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> > inspect it. Questions for the group:
> >
> > How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> > Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> > drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
> >
> > What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> > indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
> >
> > Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> > caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> > whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> > this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> > maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> > wise?
> >
> > My used car guide is that at
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
> >
> >
> i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
> instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.
>
> specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
> at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
> it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
> considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
> lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
> cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
> not good.
>
> similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
> 6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
> 80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
> 1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
> almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.
>
> the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
> only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.


I'm with you on this. In fact, I would even look for something older.
The farther one goes back, the simpler the vehicle. For me, 1983 is the
limit. After that time, more stuff was stuffed under the hood, the cars
gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.

JT

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

jim beam wrote:
>
> Elle wrote:
> > As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> > on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> > the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> > vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> > always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> > will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> > money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
> >
> > I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> > brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> > leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> > 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> > area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> > is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> > far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> > problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> > inspect it. Questions for the group:
> >
> > How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> > Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> > drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
> >
> > What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> > indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
> >
> > Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> > caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> > whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> > this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> > maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> > wise?
> >
> > My used car guide is that at
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html
> >
> >
> i owned a 2000 civic and sold it in favor of keeping my 89 civic
> instead. the 89 is faster, handles much better and is invisible to thieves.
>
> specifically, the "moose test" is not something that generation are good
> at. the 91 comes with front sway bar as standard. the 99's only have
> it on the si and ex. if you don't have that on the model you're
> considering, get one. it makes a huge difference to emergency
> lane-change stability - i retrofitted mine as soon as i'd finished
> cleaning my pants after the first time i had to do that in the 2000.
> not good.
>
> similarly, road-tripping to visit relations, i drive a couple of 10 mile
> 6% grades. on the 89, i drop a gear and the car rocks up them at
> 80-90mph, no problem, maybe 40-60% throttle. the 2000, with its extra
> 1,000lbs of body weight has a hard time reaching 80mph at 100%. you can
> almost see the fuel running out the tail pipe when you're doing that too.
>
> the plus side is that the 99 is almost identical mechanically to the 91.
> only real difference is 4-point injection and air bags.


I'm with you on this. In fact, I would even look for something older.
The farther one goes back, the simpler the vehicle. For me, 1983 is the
limit. After that time, more stuff was stuffed under the hood, the cars
gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.

JT