Advice for buying used Accord/Civic, please?

Page 1 of 2  
My husband and I are looking for a cheap but reliable 2nd car. We've found the resale value of VWs (our first choice) to be kinda high, so we thought we might check out Hondas. We need to fit 2 adults, 2
dogs, and a baby potentially, so that means 4 doors.
So, first, would the Civic be sufficient (one dog is a greyhound!), or would we need to look only at Accords?
Second: how young of whichever is recommended can we get for around $2000 through private sale, with A/C, manual trans, dual front airbags and 4/5 doors, that will last about a year, year and a half? If it dies after that, it's ok, lol. But it has to be pretty reliable in the meantime. Or is that a pipe dream? We really can't afford more, seriously...
Anything else we should be thinking about/of?
Thanks for any info!
Kristen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kristen wrote:

    Don't know where you are, but I last year found a nice '93 Accord in Frederick MD for $2500 (single airbag). There were many more on cars.com to look at in that price range. I'd stick to Accord over Civic, just because they are bigger. Really comes down to your preference. bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fifth generation Civic was made from 1992 to 1995. In most cases, the last one made in a series (eg 1995) is the best of the bunch since any bugs found in prior models in the series were repaired. In other words, by the time the 1995 was made--most all or perhaps ALL of the bugs have been eliminated. If you can find a great deal on a 1995 Civic--buy it. For these same reasons, consider the 1996 Prelude or the 1997 Accord. All of those models were the last in the series. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
wrote:

Update: The 1993 Accord was also the last model in that series of Accords so you should add that one to your list. If possible, get the EX model since it has the most extras. I once owned a 1993 Accord EX and I loved it. It ran great. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jason wrote:

I disagree....
Ever notice how FEW complaints in this NG are for a 96 Civic?
Its one of the best cars Honda ever made, reliable, economical and fun to drive.
--
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's right.
As a matter of fact, the Civic chassis was all-new in 92. 96 saw the same platform with some freshened up sheet metal and a redone interior, but mechanically it's more similar to the 92-95 models than not.
It wasn't until 2001 that the Civic platform was completely redesigned. That would be the one to stay away from.
You'd think the 92, being the first year of a platform, would also be one to stay away from--but I bought a 92 Si brand new, and it lives to this day in awfully good shape with about 137K miles on it--still on its original clutch.
So it may be the case in general to stay away from first model years, but your exposure on a Honda first model year is much less than probably your exposure on, say, a GM that's been around forever, using the venerable V6 pushrod engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

strictly speaking, the 88-91 was the first of that platform. the suspension is identical in the rear to both the 92-95 & 96-00. there are minor variations in front suspension between all 3 generations, with the last 2 being the most similar, but the overall suspension config & chassis layout for all 3 is the same.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ummm....79 ended the first gen. 80-83 saw the second gen, a beast all to itself. 84-87 was a new platform, but 88-91 was the same platform with refreshed sheetmetal. Then 92-95 was an all-new platform, unrelated to the 84-91 platform. 96-00 (when they changed to a 5 year model changeover, up from 4 years) was the same with fresh sheetmetal.
Come to think of it, the decision to move to a 5 year cycle--made in the middle of the Civic's 96-00 reign--signaled the beginning of the bean counters, and the end of engineering at Honda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

dude, with respect, i've owned a waggonload of the 88-91's, still own a 00 and have worked on a bunch of the 92-95's. i'm telling you, all 3 gens are the same.
front suspension: 88-91
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SH30/007/2.jpg
92-95
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SR30/007/7.jpg
96-00
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13S030/007/2.jpg
rear suspension: 88-91
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SH30/007/5.jpg
92-95
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SR30/008/1.jpg
96-00
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13S030/007/5.jpg
the 84-87 was utterly different: front:
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SB30/010/3.jpg
rear:
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SB30/010/6.jpg

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hmmmmm.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yep, I wouldn't belittle the 88-91. In my opinion, the best looking of the bunch and it shared the same suspension design as my 98 Hatch. That model has been around for 16 years and there's still a lot of them on the road. But mechanically speaking, I think the last iteration of the front double wishbone Civic was the best.
Pars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pars wrote:

the 98 looks butt tho... 88-91 is the best! if i could really be bothered, i'd put the 00 ex motor & electronics in my 89. fast & frugal!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pars wrote:

if something were to happen to my 98, id definately consider getting a 91 Si.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Since I'm alway going off topic:
Did ya know that the 05 Civic can do over a 1000Km per Tank? I think the Reverb's body kit might have helped...
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/50-litre.htm
Pars

the
model
road.
double
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 1988 and 1996 changes were more than just fresh sheetmetal.
The 1988 model replaced all of the carburator engines with fuel injected engines. The famed double wishbone suspension on all four wheels was also included in the 1988 models. Wheelbase was also increased compared to the 1984 model.
The 1996 model came with engine changes, and a longer wheelbase for the hatchbacks. Most notable was that the HX replaced the VX, with more power, but worse fuel economy (the HX was not that much better than the regular Civics).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Timothy J. Lee wrote:

Are you sure about this? I thought that you still get a carbureted engine in a 4th-gen Civic, and that '92 was the first year that all Civics got fuel injection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If true in the US, that would only be for the base model 70hp engine with 4-speed manual transmission; the DX/LX/Wagovan 1.5L 92hp engine and the Si/4WD-wagon 1.6L 106?hp engines were fuel injected.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
High Tech Misfit wrote:

in the u.s., 88-on are all fuel injected. the 1.5l 88-91 models has a dual point throttle body injection unit that /looks/ like a carburettor, but isn't! the 1.6l has 4-point injection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
High Tech Misfit wrote:

I owned a base model '91 Civic, and it was fuel injected. Fuel injection from that era came in two flavors: Dual-Point Throttle Body Injection, which was on the D15B1 and D15B2 motors, and a port-injection system that was on the D15B6 motor in the HF (High gas mileage) model, and on the Si. The HF motor had only 8 valves, while the rest were all 16 valve engines.
I saw three of these motors when I did a swap at 225,000 miles. The D15B1 motor was original, the yard gave me an HF (D15B6) motor by mistake, and I traded it back to them for a D15B2 motor, which was a direct bolt-in and plug-in replacement. I got over 40 MPG with the setup, and drove it another 40,000 miles before buying my Accord 5 years ago, and sold the civic to a friend. He still has it, and it has nearly 300,000 miles on it. With gas prices what they are, I might offer to buy it back :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
slim wrote:

im pretty sure the 96-00 civics were all pretty much carryover technology from the 92-95 models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.