|
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/ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands