|
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1jldh.7802$1s6.3047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net: > I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX), > 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better > fuel mileage. It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel economy,it's the lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger Accord. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >> CRX), >> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >> fuel mileage. > > It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel > economy,it's the > lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger > Accord. c. 1990: displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >> CRX), >> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >> fuel mileage. > > It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel > economy,it's the > lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger > Accord. c. 1990: displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >> CRX), >> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >> fuel mileage. > > It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel > economy,it's the > lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger > Accord. c. 1990: displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >> CRX), >> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >> fuel mileage. > > It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel > economy,it's the > lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger > Accord. c. 1990: displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote > >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>CRX), >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>fuel mileage. >> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel >>economy,it's the >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>Accord. > > > c. 1990: > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord > > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). I've got well over 700km out of a tank with highway driving with my first Accord, too (for those familiar with the southern-BC area, I once gassed up in North Vancouver, got to Whistler, had to double back to Squamish, then continued on through Pemberton, Lillooet, and north well past Quesnel before needing to fill up - Streets and Trips shows that as over 750km - and that was with two people and a bunch of tools in the car). That was for a work trip, and I was getting 30 cents per km for mileage, too :) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote > >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>CRX), >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>fuel mileage. >> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel >>economy,it's the >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>Accord. > > > c. 1990: > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord > > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). I've got well over 700km out of a tank with highway driving with my first Accord, too (for those familiar with the southern-BC area, I once gassed up in North Vancouver, got to Whistler, had to double back to Squamish, then continued on through Pemberton, Lillooet, and north well past Quesnel before needing to fill up - Streets and Trips shows that as over 750km - and that was with two people and a bunch of tools in the car). That was for a work trip, and I was getting 30 cents per km for mileage, too :) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote > >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>CRX), >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>fuel mileage. >> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel >>economy,it's the >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>Accord. > > > c. 1990: > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord > > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). I've got well over 700km out of a tank with highway driving with my first Accord, too (for those familiar with the southern-BC area, I once gassed up in North Vancouver, got to Whistler, had to double back to Squamish, then continued on through Pemberton, Lillooet, and north well past Quesnel before needing to fill up - Streets and Trips shows that as over 750km - and that was with two people and a bunch of tools in the car). That was for a work trip, and I was getting 30 cents per km for mileage, too :) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote > >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>CRX), >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>fuel mileage. >> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel >>economy,it's the >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>Accord. > > > c. 1990: > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord > > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy. > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). I've got well over 700km out of a tank with highway driving with my first Accord, too (for those familiar with the southern-BC area, I once gassed up in North Vancouver, got to Whistler, had to double back to Squamish, then continued on through Pemberton, Lillooet, and north well past Quesnel before needing to fill up - Streets and Trips shows that as over 750km - and that was with two people and a bunch of tools in the car). That was for a work trip, and I was getting 30 cents per km for mileage, too :) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote >> >>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >>> >>>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>>CRX), >>>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>>fuel mileage. >>> >>>It's not the small displacement engines that give the >>>fuel economy,it's the >>>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>>Accord. >> >> >> c. 1990: >> displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) >> Accord >> weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord >> >> No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, >> AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel >> economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. > > Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being > that different... you just trade off a bit less power for > a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty > good on gas - even not running as well as it should, > probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a > 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly > city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). Shucks, Matt, I'm getting 40 mpg almost all year 'round with my suburban driving in my 91 Civic. Never goes below 37 mpg. 30 vs. 40 is beaucoup difference to me. Baby needs a new pair of skis, etc., not more money wasted on gasoline, nor a muscle car. :-) 90 mph... good lord! |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote >> >>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >>> >>>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>>CRX), >>>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>>fuel mileage. >>> >>>It's not the small displacement engines that give the >>>fuel economy,it's the >>>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>>Accord. >> >> >> c. 1990: >> displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) >> Accord >> weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord >> >> No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, >> AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel >> economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. > > Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being > that different... you just trade off a bit less power for > a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty > good on gas - even not running as well as it should, > probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a > 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly > city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). Shucks, Matt, I'm getting 40 mpg almost all year 'round with my suburban driving in my 91 Civic. Never goes below 37 mpg. 30 vs. 40 is beaucoup difference to me. Baby needs a new pair of skis, etc., not more money wasted on gasoline, nor a muscle car. :-) 90 mph... good lord! |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote >> >>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >>> >>>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>>CRX), >>>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>>fuel mileage. >>> >>>It's not the small displacement engines that give the >>>fuel economy,it's the >>>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>>Accord. >> >> >> c. 1990: >> displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) >> Accord >> weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord >> >> No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, >> AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel >> economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. > > Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being > that different... you just trade off a bit less power for > a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty > good on gas - even not running as well as it should, > probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a > 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly > city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). Shucks, Matt, I'm getting 40 mpg almost all year 'round with my suburban driving in my 91 Civic. Never goes below 37 mpg. 30 vs. 40 is beaucoup difference to me. Baby needs a new pair of skis, etc., not more money wasted on gasoline, nor a muscle car. :-) 90 mph... good lord! |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote >> >>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >>> >>>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic >>>>CRX), >>>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better >>>>fuel mileage. >>> >>>It's not the small displacement engines that give the >>>fuel economy,it's the >>>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger >>>Accord. >> >> >> c. 1990: >> displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) >> Accord >> weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord >> >> No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors, >> AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel >> economy. Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth. > > Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being > that different... you just trade off a bit less power for > a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l Accord pretty > good on gas - even not running as well as it should, > probably needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a > 50l tank (works out to around 28-30mpg, I think), mostly > city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot). Shucks, Matt, I'm getting 40 mpg almost all year 'round with my suburban driving in my 91 Civic. Never goes below 37 mpg. 30 vs. 40 is beaucoup difference to me. Baby needs a new pair of skis, etc., not more money wasted on gasoline, nor a muscle car. :-) 90 mph... good lord! |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Two real PIA things about later Accords... Pop up headlights and the
other PIA automatic seat belts. Either feature is something I would avoid at all costs.. JT Elle wrote: > > I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX), > 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better > fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price > on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the > higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that > era. > > Thank you for the input. > > "Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote > > 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. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Two real PIA things about later Accords... Pop up headlights and the
other PIA automatic seat belts. Either feature is something I would avoid at all costs.. JT Elle wrote: > > I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX), > 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better > fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price > on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the > higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that > era. > > Thank you for the input. > > "Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote > > 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. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Two real PIA things about later Accords... Pop up headlights and the
other PIA automatic seat belts. Either feature is something I would avoid at all costs.. JT Elle wrote: > > I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX), > 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better > fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price > on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the > higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that > era. > > Thank you for the input. > > "Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote > > 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. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Two real PIA things about later Accords... Pop up headlights and the
other PIA automatic seat belts. Either feature is something I would avoid at all costs.. JT Elle wrote: > > I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX), > 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better > fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price > on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the > higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that > era. > > Thank you for the input. > > "Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote > > 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. |
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 > > A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair requirements to your '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and '99, but little fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of course. Does this one have VTEC? Carfax isn't necessarily a reliable resource, in my opinion. In order for anything to show up in Carfax, it must be reported to Carfax to begin with. If an event is not reported, it won't get listed. California cars seem to be better represented than most from the little I've seen. Even emissions failures tend to get reported in CA. A car that's sven years old can have had seven years of superlative care, or seven years of haphazard and slothful attention. Seven years is plenty of time to cause plenty of damage. I have seen some pretty horrible examples of *five* year-old cars in my travels. If it's not poor maintenance, it's nightmarishly bad "custom" work, like remote starters and stereos. Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. Unless the first one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, consider your early subjects learning experiences as you work your way towards knowing what's good and what's bad in the particular model you desire. ****** How best to tell if a car has been in an accident? By using your own eyes. The first and very best clues are the body panel gaps. Luckily, Honda puts extreme care and attention into their body panel alignment, so you can be sure the car left the factory with near-perfect gaps (Hyundai of late has copied this approach). Take your intended car to a fairly empty lot, park it, close all the doors and windows, then clear your mind and slowly walk all around it from a short distance, noting the gaps. They should be perfect. Squat down and study how the doors, hood, trunk/hatch, bumpers and lamps line up with each other. Are the bumpers straight? Do they bow down in the middle so gaps there are bigger than gaps at the ends? Standing right in front of the front bumper, look straight down. Is the bumper lined up nicely with the grille and headlights, or does it appear pushed in, slightly under the headlights and grille? Most impacts are frontal. Check the bumper ends. How do they line up with the curve of the wheel wells? Should be perfect. If the ends are too far forwards, too far back, off to one side, then the car's been repaired. The hood should line up equally with both front and rear fender corners, and should be centered perfectly between the headlights. A Chev Cavalier will be loosely lined up here; a Honda will be perfect. Check for overspray and evidence of masking-off around trim that's not normally removed, like window moldings. Lift the hood and study the bumper rebar, if you can see it. Any stickers? Yellow writing? Any evidence of primer or rough, dull paint on the fender tops where the bolts are? Inside the door seams, trunk seams? Any scraps of blue tape? Any fasteners missing? Is there an EPA sticker on the underside of the hood? Take the car to an underground garage or other dark spot. How is the headlamp aim? Repair shops sometimes neglect to aim the lights (or cannot) after the car is fixed, and one or both can be wildly out. Check the tires, of course. What kind of wear do they have? Run your hand (flat) along the tread, forwards and back. Does it feel different one way than the other? That in itself is OK, but if it's in conjunction with badly uneven wear, you've got a case of either neglect or poor alignment. There are many other checks along this vein. However...just because a car's been in a crash doesn't mean it's worthless or a bad buy, it just means you need to be extra careful when checking it out. You *can* properly repair a car, but to know whether or not it's been properly repaired takes some effort and knowledge. New-car dealers tend to get the cream of the used-car crop, and those in at least some areas (like mine) will not put anything on their lot that has had an insurance claim against it. Private sellers and used car dealers are a riskier bet. My approach is to disregard all the above and treat every car as suspect. At some point Congress mandated that all new cars must have VIN stickers on all major body panels. I don't know what year this started. You may wish to check for the presence of these stickers. ***************** How I check a car's mechanical condition: First I insist the seller leave the engine stone cold. If I get there and the engine has been started, I walk away unless the seller has a *very* good reason for having started the engine. Before starting the engine, * Pull the oil cap, and with a strong flashlight check inside the valve cover. Bring a small mirror so you can check inside beyond the filler cap hole. Sellers can change the oil, but they normally NEVER touch inside the valve cover! There should be nothing more than a skin of brown varnish. * Pull the brake/clutch MC cover, remove the screen and stick your finger in, feeling for sludge. * Pull the auto transmission dipstick and study the color and smell. Was the dipstick easy to remove? Did it show signs of having not been removed in a long time? * A manual transmission is harder to check. If seller is uncomfortable with you raising the car and pulling the plug, take it for a drive. Should be smooth and quiet, with fast shifts easy even at high revs. Pay special attention to low gear shifts, 1-2, and 2-3. Your big worry here is low fluid. * Of course, check the power steering for leaks and sludgy deposits in its reservoir. * Remove the rad cap and check inside with a flashlight, AND look inside the expansion reservoir. Is the fluid clear? Can you see to the bottom? * Check the condition of the CV joint boots. Are the shafts original? The boots? Any cracks? * Open the driver's door just a bit. Lift the door up and down. How much play? Lots means a car that's had lots of city use. * Check the door hinges. How old is the white grease? That's how long since it's seen a dealer's service bay. * Reject any car with aftermarket accessories of any kind, from radios to remote start to alarms. Way too risky. *************** ONLY after that will I start the engine. And even then I will ask the *seller* to start it, so I can watch the tailpipe fof smoke, and be in a better postion to listen to the engine as it fires. Finally, I budget about $1000 for fixup items, just in case there are still some surprises afterwards. With our '99 Tercel I bought a couple of years ago, I did just this, and was very pleasantly surprised to discover no snakes hidden anywhere at all. Good luck. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$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 > > A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair requirements to your '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and '99, but little fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of course. Does this one have VTEC? Carfax isn't necessarily a reliable resource, in my opinion. In order for anything to show up in Carfax, it must be reported to Carfax to begin with. If an event is not reported, it won't get listed. California cars seem to be better represented than most from the little I've seen. Even emissions failures tend to get reported in CA. A car that's sven years old can have had seven years of superlative care, or seven years of haphazard and slothful attention. Seven years is plenty of time to cause plenty of damage. I have seen some pretty horrible examples of *five* year-old cars in my travels. If it's not poor maintenance, it's nightmarishly bad "custom" work, like remote starters and stereos. Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. Unless the first one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, consider your early subjects learning experiences as you work your way towards knowing what's good and what's bad in the particular model you desire. ****** How best to tell if a car has been in an accident? By using your own eyes. The first and very best clues are the body panel gaps. Luckily, Honda puts extreme care and attention into their body panel alignment, so you can be sure the car left the factory with near-perfect gaps (Hyundai of late has copied this approach). Take your intended car to a fairly empty lot, park it, close all the doors and windows, then clear your mind and slowly walk all around it from a short distance, noting the gaps. They should be perfect. Squat down and study how the doors, hood, trunk/hatch, bumpers and lamps line up with each other. Are the bumpers straight? Do they bow down in the middle so gaps there are bigger than gaps at the ends? Standing right in front of the front bumper, look straight down. Is the bumper lined up nicely with the grille and headlights, or does it appear pushed in, slightly under the headlights and grille? Most impacts are frontal. Check the bumper ends. How do they line up with the curve of the wheel wells? Should be perfect. If the ends are too far forwards, too far back, off to one side, then the car's been repaired. The hood should line up equally with both front and rear fender corners, and should be centered perfectly between the headlights. A Chev Cavalier will be loosely lined up here; a Honda will be perfect. Check for overspray and evidence of masking-off around trim that's not normally removed, like window moldings. Lift the hood and study the bumper rebar, if you can see it. Any stickers? Yellow writing? Any evidence of primer or rough, dull paint on the fender tops where the bolts are? Inside the door seams, trunk seams? Any scraps of blue tape? Any fasteners missing? Is there an EPA sticker on the underside of the hood? Take the car to an underground garage or other dark spot. How is the headlamp aim? Repair shops sometimes neglect to aim the lights (or cannot) after the car is fixed, and one or both can be wildly out. Check the tires, of course. What kind of wear do they have? Run your hand (flat) along the tread, forwards and back. Does it feel different one way than the other? That in itself is OK, but if it's in conjunction with badly uneven wear, you've got a case of either neglect or poor alignment. There are many other checks along this vein. However...just because a car's been in a crash doesn't mean it's worthless or a bad buy, it just means you need to be extra careful when checking it out. You *can* properly repair a car, but to know whether or not it's been properly repaired takes some effort and knowledge. New-car dealers tend to get the cream of the used-car crop, and those in at least some areas (like mine) will not put anything on their lot that has had an insurance claim against it. Private sellers and used car dealers are a riskier bet. My approach is to disregard all the above and treat every car as suspect. At some point Congress mandated that all new cars must have VIN stickers on all major body panels. I don't know what year this started. You may wish to check for the presence of these stickers. ***************** How I check a car's mechanical condition: First I insist the seller leave the engine stone cold. If I get there and the engine has been started, I walk away unless the seller has a *very* good reason for having started the engine. Before starting the engine, * Pull the oil cap, and with a strong flashlight check inside the valve cover. Bring a small mirror so you can check inside beyond the filler cap hole. Sellers can change the oil, but they normally NEVER touch inside the valve cover! There should be nothing more than a skin of brown varnish. * Pull the brake/clutch MC cover, remove the screen and stick your finger in, feeling for sludge. * Pull the auto transmission dipstick and study the color and smell. Was the dipstick easy to remove? Did it show signs of having not been removed in a long time? * A manual transmission is harder to check. If seller is uncomfortable with you raising the car and pulling the plug, take it for a drive. Should be smooth and quiet, with fast shifts easy even at high revs. Pay special attention to low gear shifts, 1-2, and 2-3. Your big worry here is low fluid. * Of course, check the power steering for leaks and sludgy deposits in its reservoir. * Remove the rad cap and check inside with a flashlight, AND look inside the expansion reservoir. Is the fluid clear? Can you see to the bottom? * Check the condition of the CV joint boots. Are the shafts original? The boots? Any cracks? * Open the driver's door just a bit. Lift the door up and down. How much play? Lots means a car that's had lots of city use. * Check the door hinges. How old is the white grease? That's how long since it's seen a dealer's service bay. * Reject any car with aftermarket accessories of any kind, from radios to remote start to alarms. Way too risky. *************** ONLY after that will I start the engine. And even then I will ask the *seller* to start it, so I can watch the tailpipe fof smoke, and be in a better postion to listen to the engine as it fires. Finally, I budget about $1000 for fixup items, just in case there are still some surprises afterwards. With our '99 Tercel I bought a couple of years ago, I did just this, and was very pleasantly surprised to discover no snakes hidden anywhere at all. Good luck. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$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 > > A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair requirements to your '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and '99, but little fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of course. Does this one have VTEC? Carfax isn't necessarily a reliable resource, in my opinion. In order for anything to show up in Carfax, it must be reported to Carfax to begin with. If an event is not reported, it won't get listed. California cars seem to be better represented than most from the little I've seen. Even emissions failures tend to get reported in CA. A car that's sven years old can have had seven years of superlative care, or seven years of haphazard and slothful attention. Seven years is plenty of time to cause plenty of damage. I have seen some pretty horrible examples of *five* year-old cars in my travels. If it's not poor maintenance, it's nightmarishly bad "custom" work, like remote starters and stereos. Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. Unless the first one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, consider your early subjects learning experiences as you work your way towards knowing what's good and what's bad in the particular model you desire. ****** How best to tell if a car has been in an accident? By using your own eyes. The first and very best clues are the body panel gaps. Luckily, Honda puts extreme care and attention into their body panel alignment, so you can be sure the car left the factory with near-perfect gaps (Hyundai of late has copied this approach). Take your intended car to a fairly empty lot, park it, close all the doors and windows, then clear your mind and slowly walk all around it from a short distance, noting the gaps. They should be perfect. Squat down and study how the doors, hood, trunk/hatch, bumpers and lamps line up with each other. Are the bumpers straight? Do they bow down in the middle so gaps there are bigger than gaps at the ends? Standing right in front of the front bumper, look straight down. Is the bumper lined up nicely with the grille and headlights, or does it appear pushed in, slightly under the headlights and grille? Most impacts are frontal. Check the bumper ends. How do they line up with the curve of the wheel wells? Should be perfect. If the ends are too far forwards, too far back, off to one side, then the car's been repaired. The hood should line up equally with both front and rear fender corners, and should be centered perfectly between the headlights. A Chev Cavalier will be loosely lined up here; a Honda will be perfect. Check for overspray and evidence of masking-off around trim that's not normally removed, like window moldings. Lift the hood and study the bumper rebar, if you can see it. Any stickers? Yellow writing? Any evidence of primer or rough, dull paint on the fender tops where the bolts are? Inside the door seams, trunk seams? Any scraps of blue tape? Any fasteners missing? Is there an EPA sticker on the underside of the hood? Take the car to an underground garage or other dark spot. How is the headlamp aim? Repair shops sometimes neglect to aim the lights (or cannot) after the car is fixed, and one or both can be wildly out. Check the tires, of course. What kind of wear do they have? Run your hand (flat) along the tread, forwards and back. Does it feel different one way than the other? That in itself is OK, but if it's in conjunction with badly uneven wear, you've got a case of either neglect or poor alignment. There are many other checks along this vein. However...just because a car's been in a crash doesn't mean it's worthless or a bad buy, it just means you need to be extra careful when checking it out. You *can* properly repair a car, but to know whether or not it's been properly repaired takes some effort and knowledge. New-car dealers tend to get the cream of the used-car crop, and those in at least some areas (like mine) will not put anything on their lot that has had an insurance claim against it. Private sellers and used car dealers are a riskier bet. My approach is to disregard all the above and treat every car as suspect. At some point Congress mandated that all new cars must have VIN stickers on all major body panels. I don't know what year this started. You may wish to check for the presence of these stickers. ***************** How I check a car's mechanical condition: First I insist the seller leave the engine stone cold. If I get there and the engine has been started, I walk away unless the seller has a *very* good reason for having started the engine. Before starting the engine, * Pull the oil cap, and with a strong flashlight check inside the valve cover. Bring a small mirror so you can check inside beyond the filler cap hole. Sellers can change the oil, but they normally NEVER touch inside the valve cover! There should be nothing more than a skin of brown varnish. * Pull the brake/clutch MC cover, remove the screen and stick your finger in, feeling for sludge. * Pull the auto transmission dipstick and study the color and smell. Was the dipstick easy to remove? Did it show signs of having not been removed in a long time? * A manual transmission is harder to check. If seller is uncomfortable with you raising the car and pulling the plug, take it for a drive. Should be smooth and quiet, with fast shifts easy even at high revs. Pay special attention to low gear shifts, 1-2, and 2-3. Your big worry here is low fluid. * Of course, check the power steering for leaks and sludgy deposits in its reservoir. * Remove the rad cap and check inside with a flashlight, AND look inside the expansion reservoir. Is the fluid clear? Can you see to the bottom? * Check the condition of the CV joint boots. Are the shafts original? The boots? Any cracks? * Open the driver's door just a bit. Lift the door up and down. How much play? Lots means a car that's had lots of city use. * Check the door hinges. How old is the white grease? That's how long since it's seen a dealer's service bay. * Reject any car with aftermarket accessories of any kind, from radios to remote start to alarms. Way too risky. *************** ONLY after that will I start the engine. And even then I will ask the *seller* to start it, so I can watch the tailpipe fof smoke, and be in a better postion to listen to the engine as it fires. Finally, I budget about $1000 for fixup items, just in case there are still some surprises afterwards. With our '99 Tercel I bought a couple of years ago, I did just this, and was very pleasantly surprised to discover no snakes hidden anywhere at all. Good luck. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kA2dh.6446$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 > > A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair requirements to your '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and '99, but little fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of course. Does this one have VTEC? Carfax isn't necessarily a reliable resource, in my opinion. In order for anything to show up in Carfax, it must be reported to Carfax to begin with. If an event is not reported, it won't get listed. California cars seem to be better represented than most from the little I've seen. Even emissions failures tend to get reported in CA. A car that's sven years old can have had seven years of superlative care, or seven years of haphazard and slothful attention. Seven years is plenty of time to cause plenty of damage. I have seen some pretty horrible examples of *five* year-old cars in my travels. If it's not poor maintenance, it's nightmarishly bad "custom" work, like remote starters and stereos. Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. Unless the first one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, consider your early subjects learning experiences as you work your way towards knowing what's good and what's bad in the particular model you desire. ****** How best to tell if a car has been in an accident? By using your own eyes. The first and very best clues are the body panel gaps. Luckily, Honda puts extreme care and attention into their body panel alignment, so you can be sure the car left the factory with near-perfect gaps (Hyundai of late has copied this approach). Take your intended car to a fairly empty lot, park it, close all the doors and windows, then clear your mind and slowly walk all around it from a short distance, noting the gaps. They should be perfect. Squat down and study how the doors, hood, trunk/hatch, bumpers and lamps line up with each other. Are the bumpers straight? Do they bow down in the middle so gaps there are bigger than gaps at the ends? Standing right in front of the front bumper, look straight down. Is the bumper lined up nicely with the grille and headlights, or does it appear pushed in, slightly under the headlights and grille? Most impacts are frontal. Check the bumper ends. How do they line up with the curve of the wheel wells? Should be perfect. If the ends are too far forwards, too far back, off to one side, then the car's been repaired. The hood should line up equally with both front and rear fender corners, and should be centered perfectly between the headlights. A Chev Cavalier will be loosely lined up here; a Honda will be perfect. Check for overspray and evidence of masking-off around trim that's not normally removed, like window moldings. Lift the hood and study the bumper rebar, if you can see it. Any stickers? Yellow writing? Any evidence of primer or rough, dull paint on the fender tops where the bolts are? Inside the door seams, trunk seams? Any scraps of blue tape? Any fasteners missing? Is there an EPA sticker on the underside of the hood? Take the car to an underground garage or other dark spot. How is the headlamp aim? Repair shops sometimes neglect to aim the lights (or cannot) after the car is fixed, and one or both can be wildly out. Check the tires, of course. What kind of wear do they have? Run your hand (flat) along the tread, forwards and back. Does it feel different one way than the other? That in itself is OK, but if it's in conjunction with badly uneven wear, you've got a case of either neglect or poor alignment. There are many other checks along this vein. However...just because a car's been in a crash doesn't mean it's worthless or a bad buy, it just means you need to be extra careful when checking it out. You *can* properly repair a car, but to know whether or not it's been properly repaired takes some effort and knowledge. New-car dealers tend to get the cream of the used-car crop, and those in at least some areas (like mine) will not put anything on their lot that has had an insurance claim against it. Private sellers and used car dealers are a riskier bet. My approach is to disregard all the above and treat every car as suspect. At some point Congress mandated that all new cars must have VIN stickers on all major body panels. I don't know what year this started. You may wish to check for the presence of these stickers. ***************** How I check a car's mechanical condition: First I insist the seller leave the engine stone cold. If I get there and the engine has been started, I walk away unless the seller has a *very* good reason for having started the engine. Before starting the engine, * Pull the oil cap, and with a strong flashlight check inside the valve cover. Bring a small mirror so you can check inside beyond the filler cap hole. Sellers can change the oil, but they normally NEVER touch inside the valve cover! There should be nothing more than a skin of brown varnish. * Pull the brake/clutch MC cover, remove the screen and stick your finger in, feeling for sludge. * Pull the auto transmission dipstick and study the color and smell. Was the dipstick easy to remove? Did it show signs of having not been removed in a long time? * A manual transmission is harder to check. If seller is uncomfortable with you raising the car and pulling the plug, take it for a drive. Should be smooth and quiet, with fast shifts easy even at high revs. Pay special attention to low gear shifts, 1-2, and 2-3. Your big worry here is low fluid. * Of course, check the power steering for leaks and sludgy deposits in its reservoir. * Remove the rad cap and check inside with a flashlight, AND look inside the expansion reservoir. Is the fluid clear? Can you see to the bottom? * Check the condition of the CV joint boots. Are the shafts original? The boots? Any cracks? * Open the driver's door just a bit. Lift the door up and down. How much play? Lots means a car that's had lots of city use. * Check the door hinges. How old is the white grease? That's how long since it's seen a dealer's service bay. * Reject any car with aftermarket accessories of any kind, from radios to remote start to alarms. Way too risky. *************** ONLY after that will I start the engine. And even then I will ask the *seller* to start it, so I can watch the tailpipe fof smoke, and be in a better postion to listen to the engine as it fires. Finally, I budget about $1000 for fixup items, just in case there are still some surprises afterwards. With our '99 Tercel I bought a couple of years ago, I did just this, and was very pleasantly surprised to discover no snakes hidden anywhere at all. Good luck. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair > requirements to your > '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and > '99, but little > fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of > course. > > Does this one have VTEC? It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking for a sizable markup as opposed to someone just tired of their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue it. > Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. > Unless the first > one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, > consider your > early subjects learning experiences as you work your way > towards knowing > what's good and what's bad in the particular model you > desire. snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. Sounds good. You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can fix on my own. Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win on all levels (money-wise and fun). Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair > requirements to your > '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and > '99, but little > fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of > course. > > Does this one have VTEC? It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking for a sizable markup as opposed to someone just tired of their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue it. > Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. > Unless the first > one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, > consider your > early subjects learning experiences as you work your way > towards knowing > what's good and what's bad in the particular model you > desire. snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. Sounds good. You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can fix on my own. Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win on all levels (money-wise and fun). Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair > requirements to your > '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and > '99, but little > fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of > course. > > Does this one have VTEC? It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking for a sizable markup as opposed to someone just tired of their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue it. > Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. > Unless the first > one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, > consider your > early subjects learning experiences as you work your way > towards knowing > what's good and what's bad in the particular model you > desire. snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. Sounds good. You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can fix on my own. Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win on all levels (money-wise and fun). Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair > requirements to your > '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and > '99, but little > fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of > course. > > Does this one have VTEC? It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking for a sizable markup as opposed to someone just tired of their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue it. > Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. > Unless the first > one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, > consider your > early subjects learning experiences as you work your way > towards knowing > what's good and what's bad in the particular model you > desire. snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. Sounds good. You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can fix on my own. Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win on all levels (money-wise and fun). Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in news:CJqdh.7931
$1s6.2444@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > > Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on to our Tercel. I went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. The one I eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has been approached in very greatly protracted leisure. I'm NEVER in a hurry. There's always another one available somewhere. It's actually easier these days, with the Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush off to the convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon to catch an AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. Unless you've stumbled across a super-rare barn-find all-original '65 Mustang K-code once owned by somebody very famous, no car is worth getting weepy-eyed over. A car is a car. Take your time. Find the right one, -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in news:CJqdh.7931
$1s6.2444@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > > Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on to our Tercel. I went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. The one I eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has been approached in very greatly protracted leisure. I'm NEVER in a hurry. There's always another one available somewhere. It's actually easier these days, with the Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush off to the convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon to catch an AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. Unless you've stumbled across a super-rare barn-find all-original '65 Mustang K-code once owned by somebody very famous, no car is worth getting weepy-eyed over. A car is a car. Take your time. Find the right one, -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in news:CJqdh.7931
$1s6.2444@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > > Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on to our Tercel. I went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. The one I eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has been approached in very greatly protracted leisure. I'm NEVER in a hurry. There's always another one available somewhere. It's actually easier these days, with the Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush off to the convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon to catch an AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. Unless you've stumbled across a super-rare barn-find all-original '65 Mustang K-code once owned by somebody very famous, no car is worth getting weepy-eyed over. A car is a car. Take your time. Find the right one, -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in news:CJqdh.7931
$1s6.2444@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > > Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on to our Tercel. I went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. The one I eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has been approached in very greatly protracted leisure. I'm NEVER in a hurry. There's always another one available somewhere. It's actually easier these days, with the Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush off to the convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon to catch an AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. Unless you've stumbled across a super-rare barn-find all-original '65 Mustang K-code once owned by somebody very famous, no car is worth getting weepy-eyed over. A car is a car. Take your time. Find the right one, -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "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. the helm manual lists my 89 at 2,088lbs for the stick hatch dx. similarly, helm lists the 2000 at 3,285 for the same model. 92hp for the 89 vs. 106hp for the 2000 gives power/weight ratios of 0.044hp/lb for the 89 and 0.032hp/lb for the 2000. hence the 89 is better equipped, and that accords with my experience driving. > > 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! ;-) crx's are utterly awesome, and offer the best economy as they're slightly lighter than the civic, but they're considerably more expensive, hereabouts at least - every ricer and their dog wants one. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "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. the helm manual lists my 89 at 2,088lbs for the stick hatch dx. similarly, helm lists the 2000 at 3,285 for the same model. 92hp for the 89 vs. 106hp for the 2000 gives power/weight ratios of 0.044hp/lb for the 89 and 0.032hp/lb for the 2000. hence the 89 is better equipped, and that accords with my experience driving. > > 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! ;-) crx's are utterly awesome, and offer the best economy as they're slightly lighter than the civic, but they're considerably more expensive, hereabouts at least - every ricer and their dog wants one. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "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. the helm manual lists my 89 at 2,088lbs for the stick hatch dx. similarly, helm lists the 2000 at 3,285 for the same model. 92hp for the 89 vs. 106hp for the 2000 gives power/weight ratios of 0.044hp/lb for the 89 and 0.032hp/lb for the 2000. hence the 89 is better equipped, and that accords with my experience driving. > > 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! ;-) crx's are utterly awesome, and offer the best economy as they're slightly lighter than the civic, but they're considerably more expensive, hereabouts at least - every ricer and their dog wants one. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "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. the helm manual lists my 89 at 2,088lbs for the stick hatch dx. similarly, helm lists the 2000 at 3,285 for the same model. 92hp for the 89 vs. 106hp for the 2000 gives power/weight ratios of 0.044hp/lb for the 89 and 0.032hp/lb for the 2000. hence the 89 is better equipped, and that accords with my experience driving. > > 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! ;-) crx's are utterly awesome, and offer the best economy as they're slightly lighter than the civic, but they're considerably more expensive, hereabouts at least - every ricer and their dog wants one. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote >> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair >> requirements to your >> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and >> '99, but little >> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of >> course. >> >> Does this one have VTEC? > > It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to > whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on > the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking > for a sizable markup there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?", you've just discovered what you're dealing with. > as opposed to someone just tired of > their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what > others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue > it. > >> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. >> Unless the first >> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, >> consider your >> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way >> towards knowing >> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you >> desire. > snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. > > Sounds good. > > You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under > something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? > > I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells > fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. > Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new > driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a > second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can > fix on my own. > > Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car > too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to > throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may > not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible > investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. > Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win > on all levels (money-wise and fun). > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote >> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair >> requirements to your >> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and >> '99, but little >> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of >> course. >> >> Does this one have VTEC? > > It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to > whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on > the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking > for a sizable markup there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?", you've just discovered what you're dealing with. > as opposed to someone just tired of > their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what > others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue > it. > >> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. >> Unless the first >> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, >> consider your >> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way >> towards knowing >> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you >> desire. > snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. > > Sounds good. > > You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under > something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? > > I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells > fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. > Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new > driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a > second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can > fix on my own. > > Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car > too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to > throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may > not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible > investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. > Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win > on all levels (money-wise and fun). > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote >> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair >> requirements to your >> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and >> '99, but little >> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of >> course. >> >> Does this one have VTEC? > > It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to > whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on > the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking > for a sizable markup there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?", you've just discovered what you're dealing with. > as opposed to someone just tired of > their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what > others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue > it. > >> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. >> Unless the first >> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, >> consider your >> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way >> towards knowing >> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you >> desire. > snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. > > Sounds good. > > You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under > something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? > > I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells > fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. > Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new > driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a > second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can > fix on my own. > > Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car > too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to > throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may > not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible > investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. > Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win > on all levels (money-wise and fun). > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote >> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair >> requirements to your >> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and >> '99, but little >> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of >> course. >> >> Does this one have VTEC? > > It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to > whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on > the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking > for a sizable markup there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?", you've just discovered what you're dealing with. > as opposed to someone just tired of > their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what > others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue > it. > >> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer. >> Unless the first >> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff, >> consider your >> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way >> towards knowing >> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you >> desire. > snip (for brevity) very good suggestions. > > Sounds good. > > You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under > something like "buying used... " Or are they there already? > > I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells > fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job. > Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new > driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a > second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can > fix on my own. > > Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car > too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to > throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may > not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible > investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun. > Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win > on all levels (money-wise and fun). > > Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye > peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-) > > |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on > to our Tercel. I > went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. > The one I > eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. > > In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has > been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm > NEVER in a hurry. There's always > another one available somewhere. It's actually easier > these days, with the > Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush > off to the > convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon > to catch an > AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. I hear you. I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed not be in a hurry. Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and I'd make it worse by re-painting. Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on > to our Tercel. I > went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. > The one I > eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. > > In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has > been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm > NEVER in a hurry. There's always > another one available somewhere. It's actually easier > these days, with the > Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush > off to the > convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon > to catch an > AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. I hear you. I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed not be in a hurry. Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and I'd make it worse by re-painting. Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX. |
Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on > to our Tercel. I > went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year. > The one I > eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning. > > In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has > been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm > NEVER in a hurry. There's always > another one available somewhere. It's actually easier > these days, with the > Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush > off to the > convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon > to catch an > AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold. I hear you. I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed not be in a hurry. Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and I'd make it worse by re-painting. Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands