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

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:4574F1CB.331A9B6@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
> 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

May be different as you get away from the Mexican border, but early '90s are
the peak model years for auto thefts in Arizona. Most of the stolen cars are
chopped for parts, which net far more than the intact car's value. In
Glendale, our neighbor's early '80s Monte Carlo was stolen three times in
one year. It was recovered partially stripped each time. New cars are more
rarely targeted; air bags and wheels are the usual casualties for those.

Mike

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:4574F1CB.331A9B6@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
> 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

May be different as you get away from the Mexican border, but early '90s are
the peak model years for auto thefts in Arizona. Most of the stolen cars are
chopped for parts, which net far more than the intact car's value. In
Glendale, our neighbor's early '80s Monte Carlo was stolen three times in
one year. It was recovered partially stripped each time. New cars are more
rarely targeted; air bags and wheels are the usual casualties for those.

Mike

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:4574F1CB.331A9B6@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
> 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

May be different as you get away from the Mexican border, but early '90s are
the peak model years for auto thefts in Arizona. Most of the stolen cars are
chopped for parts, which net far more than the intact car's value. In
Glendale, our neighbor's early '80s Monte Carlo was stolen three times in
one year. It was recovered partially stripped each time. New cars are more
rarely targeted; air bags and wheels are the usual casualties for those.

Mike

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:4574F1CB.331A9B6@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
> 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

May be different as you get away from the Mexican border, but early '90s are
the peak model years for auto thefts in Arizona. Most of the stolen cars are
chopped for parts, which net far more than the intact car's value. In
Glendale, our neighbor's early '80s Monte Carlo was stolen three times in
one year. It was recovered partially stripped each time. New cars are more
rarely targeted; air bags and wheels are the usual casualties for those.

Mike

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> 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.

yeah, but if you're used to the handling of the wishbones on a 91, you
won't want to go back. '88 is the earliest i'd go on the civic, and
even then, the '89 is an improvement.

> 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,

fuel injection is a good deal simpler than some of those honda carbs!

> the cars
> gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.
>
> JT

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> 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.

yeah, but if you're used to the handling of the wishbones on a 91, you
won't want to go back. '88 is the earliest i'd go on the civic, and
even then, the '89 is an improvement.

> 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,

fuel injection is a good deal simpler than some of those honda carbs!

> the cars
> gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.
>
> JT

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> 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.

yeah, but if you're used to the handling of the wishbones on a 91, you
won't want to go back. '88 is the earliest i'd go on the civic, and
even then, the '89 is an improvement.

> 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,

fuel injection is a good deal simpler than some of those honda carbs!

> the cars
> gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.
>
> JT

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> 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.

yeah, but if you're used to the handling of the wishbones on a 91, you
won't want to go back. '88 is the earliest i'd go on the civic, and
even then, the '89 is an improvement.

> 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,

fuel injection is a good deal simpler than some of those honda carbs!

> the cars
> gained weight and as you stated, the older cars don't have thief appeal.
>
> JT

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>> 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

Hm. Comparing a 1990 CRX to a 2000 Civic DX on Edmunds.com
puts the weights within 300 lbs of each other, not 1000. The
2000 Civic has more horsepower, more torque, etc.

Jim, I do appreciate the opinion, and it will affect my
decision (biasing it towards returning to a search for a
CRX) but I am not the same kind of driver. Lately I set my
cruise control at 65 mph. I get 45+ mpg with my old 91 with
this. Plus no bathroom accidents while driving! ;-)

But I do drive down mountains several times a year, so
handling is important to me. Sway bar comments noted!

>> 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.

Some early 1980s Hondas are available in my area, per
newspaper ads. And you bet, I keep in mind your rebuilding
experiences with your two 1980s Civics. Plus AFAIC the good
looks of those cars. I am not wild about trying to master a
carburetor, though. OTOH for under $1000, I might give it a
whirl. I will keep an eye peeled for the next six months.

And sure, I don't want any of my Hondas to be a target for
thieves.

Thanks for the input, Jim, JT, and Michael.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>> 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

Hm. Comparing a 1990 CRX to a 2000 Civic DX on Edmunds.com
puts the weights within 300 lbs of each other, not 1000. The
2000 Civic has more horsepower, more torque, etc.

Jim, I do appreciate the opinion, and it will affect my
decision (biasing it towards returning to a search for a
CRX) but I am not the same kind of driver. Lately I set my
cruise control at 65 mph. I get 45+ mpg with my old 91 with
this. Plus no bathroom accidents while driving! ;-)

But I do drive down mountains several times a year, so
handling is important to me. Sway bar comments noted!

>> 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.

Some early 1980s Hondas are available in my area, per
newspaper ads. And you bet, I keep in mind your rebuilding
experiences with your two 1980s Civics. Plus AFAIC the good
looks of those cars. I am not wild about trying to master a
carburetor, though. OTOH for under $1000, I might give it a
whirl. I will keep an eye peeled for the next six months.

And sure, I don't want any of my Hondas to be a target for
thieves.

Thanks for the input, Jim, JT, and Michael.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>> 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

Hm. Comparing a 1990 CRX to a 2000 Civic DX on Edmunds.com
puts the weights within 300 lbs of each other, not 1000. The
2000 Civic has more horsepower, more torque, etc.

Jim, I do appreciate the opinion, and it will affect my
decision (biasing it towards returning to a search for a
CRX) but I am not the same kind of driver. Lately I set my
cruise control at 65 mph. I get 45+ mpg with my old 91 with
this. Plus no bathroom accidents while driving! ;-)

But I do drive down mountains several times a year, so
handling is important to me. Sway bar comments noted!

>> 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.

Some early 1980s Hondas are available in my area, per
newspaper ads. And you bet, I keep in mind your rebuilding
experiences with your two 1980s Civics. Plus AFAIC the good
looks of those cars. I am not wild about trying to master a
carburetor, though. OTOH for under $1000, I might give it a
whirl. I will keep an eye peeled for the next six months.

And sure, I don't want any of my Hondas to be a target for
thieves.

Thanks for the input, Jim, JT, and Michael.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>> 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

Hm. Comparing a 1990 CRX to a 2000 Civic DX on Edmunds.com
puts the weights within 300 lbs of each other, not 1000. The
2000 Civic has more horsepower, more torque, etc.

Jim, I do appreciate the opinion, and it will affect my
decision (biasing it towards returning to a search for a
CRX) but I am not the same kind of driver. Lately I set my
cruise control at 65 mph. I get 45+ mpg with my old 91 with
this. Plus no bathroom accidents while driving! ;-)

But I do drive down mountains several times a year, so
handling is important to me. Sway bar comments noted!

>> 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.

Some early 1980s Hondas are available in my area, per
newspaper ads. And you bet, I keep in mind your rebuilding
experiences with your two 1980s Civics. Plus AFAIC the good
looks of those cars. I am not wild about trying to master a
carburetor, though. OTOH for under $1000, I might give it a
whirl. I will keep an eye peeled for the next six months.

And sure, I don't want any of my Hondas to be a target for
thieves.

Thanks for the input, Jim, JT, and Michael.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a Civic, take a look at a
third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on my third now, and I love them. Definitely
look for one with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made the
changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not that there's anything wrong
with the carbed versions per se, they work great, but they are pretty complex,
with about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in good shape, it'll
serve you well - there's one guy from Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an
'87 sedan with well over a million km on it.


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