Ok, I bought my car a year ago. Already I have put over 5gs worth of
parts into it, from axels and roters to motor mounts, three radiators,
and 02 sensors. A week ago the SPEED SENSOR??? went out. I paid almost
$200.00 to have it fixed. The check engine light came on again
tonight. The code read main circut malfunction. I have no clue. Anyone
know the costs on this repair and is it worth it? :cry:
1996 Honda Accord
Posted at author's request, using http://www.AutoBoardz.com interface
Articles individually verified to usenet standards. Visit URL to contact
How many miles are on this beast?
I have a 1996 Accord LX with 184k on it right now. I purchased it new.
So far, all I have spent money on besides tires and oil changes are:
1 Right axle boot.
Brake Rotors (once)
2 Timing belts/water pumps.
1 O2 Sensor
I'm a pretty happy camper!
Then you have been getting abominably bad diagnosis and repair.
What was wrong in the first place that led you to agree to all this? Sounds
like at least some of the repairs were to fix the consequences of poor
No it didn't. It read Pxxxx, where the X's are numbers.
Please tell us the number, along with any symptoms coincident with the
I have no clue either. You have related a tale of woe, but zero details. We
are not psychics, so give us something to work with.
Of course not. It will only get worse from here.
I always have a kick at people buying
dilapidated crap for the money they could have
easily spent on a american car in a decent condition.
Been had once too. No more very used old crap for me.
Japanese or american. And don't cry. You can find another sucker
to buy it. After all it's JAPANESE.
Yes, I drive a jap car and no, I don't like driving american cars
at all. But I have to be fair to the Detrua: their cars are far
more reliable than some people would like you think.
I have to ask where's the reliability data is coming from?
Consumer retorts? People seem to rate their cars based on how
they like them not on how reliable they are
(despite the istructions from retorts I guess)
The reliability results they publish (per model per year) is pure
What could've been reliable is the extended service plan costs
from insurance companies if they were to sell them for 50-100k miles.
Is there such a thing?
Ok. So there is the data tabulated by make, model and year.
You see that 02 Camry for example has held up better than
02 Monte Carlo or whatever. So what does it mean to the used
car buyer? The if he had money to buy a new camry instead
monte carlo in 2001 he would've been better off if he were to
But this is NOT the kind of information that the used car
buyer needs. If he has $5k in hand chances off that his question
is: what could I buy that won't fall apart the next day
for that amount of money? 02 monte carlo with 60k miles or 1998 civic
And, frankly, I suspect that 02 monte carlo would hold up
better if only due to newer age and much lower mileage.
Of course it does not hurt that the jap used cars overpriced,
if I were to sell one of mine tomorrow I'd get a good chunk of
cash for either one of them. Primarily because of the mass
psychosis "jap cars are more reliable". Yes. For the same model
year and zero miles on odometer they might be. However,
due to much more rapid depreciation of american cars the chances
that $5k jap is better reliability wise than an am car
are very slim. Jap cars (with exception of the current toyota crop)
are usually fun to drive (civics and accords I believe
fall into that category) and that slows down depreciation further.
On 3/9/2007 10:54 PM firstname.lastname@example.org spake these words of knowledge:
Look; the cars are not overpriced, by definition. Certainly, specific
individuals pay more (and less) than the value of a car - but the
overall market is what shows the value and sets the price of cars. If
the Japanese models were not consistently worth what people are paying
for them - new and used - they wouldn't sell, and the price would
decline. We are seeing evaluations (through pricing) set over decades.
Sure, they could all go to crap tomorrow, and the market would take
some time to adjust - but it *would* adjust (remember Saturn?)
Face it: the reason the '02 Camry costs a good deal more than the '02
Monte Carlo is because it is worth a good deal more. That's simple
reality. The figures shown in Consumer Reports for reliability (they
break reliability down in to specific categories such as engine,
electrical, etc.) reflect this value; they don't invent it.
You need to step away from the kool-aid.
Brian Kernighan wrote, "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code
in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as
Good example. For the first few years, Saturns commanded impressive
resale values - better than Hondas. The cars were in high demand,
sold only at full MSRP and few were available on the used market.
After problems started developing on 3 - 4 year-old cars, the resale
prices dropped like a rock.
The survey does affect market value in one way though. It informs the
market of facts which would otherwise be obscure. Not that we
wouldn't have figured out that Toyotas and Hondas were more reliable
by now. But the survey increases the certainty and precision of that
knowledge by a couple orders of magnitude.
That is actually a very good point. As a used car buyer who favors cars over
100K miles and looks suspiciously at cars under 80K, used car reports as to
which $10K car will hold up better the next few years don't help at all. For
all the scorn Usenet takes, it is the best way I know of getting the feel of
which cars exhibit which problems as they get old. For example, I've learned
the Ford Contour is a no-no even for a Ford fan, while the Crown Vic is a
good choice. At 50K miles and three years it could have been a close
contest... or not. That Honda has no lemons of that sort is fine.
On 9 Mar 2007 20:54:53 -0800, email@example.com wrote:
No, it means that the '02 Camry is more reliable than the '02 Monte
That is the buyer's decision to make. The reliability survey merely
provides him with some information to consider in making that
It isn't psychosis when it is backed up by fact. The reliability
survey supports this generalization and, more importantly, provides
specifics about which Japanese and American cars are most reliable and
which are least reliable. That the marketplace adjusts resale values
to reflect these facts is not a defect in the survey.
It also encourages owners to hold onto the cars longer (which is one
reason why resale values are higher.) My income demographics dictate
that I should be driving a two-year-old Mercedes, but I am happy with
my 14-year-old GS-R. Having the savings in the bank is just a bonus.
Does my GS-R cost more to maintain than a five-year-old Monte Carlo?
Probably. But if I had a Monte Carlo, I would be looking to dump it
because it is a boring piece of shit.
To summarize, it sounds like you are claiming that the Consumer
Reports Auto Reliability is "pure rubbish" because it *might* be more
economical to own a cheap, boring piece of crap.
I am going to join in on the bashing of Consumer Reports reliability rankings.
They are worthless. For one thing they cover too short a time.
JD Power survey seems practically fraudulent as they rank "initial
quality"...ie, defects when delivered...while that is nice...it doesn't tell you
if the transmission falls out at 6,000 miles.
Go to a very busy independent mechanic and ask him what breaks the least and
don't forget to get an opinion on how relatively expensive the replacement parts
are, you will be surprised.
Second best ask a lot of people who would qualify as "car enthusiasts" and ask
them for their experiences.
I wish I knew of a good place to find reliability rankings with published
criteria that I could believe in. If anyone does know of one please tell me.
Gordon McGrew wrote:
On 5/6/2007 1:32 PM .... spake these words of knowledge:
Just write your own. That should serve you quite well, and you'll be
very satisfied with how bright you think the author is.
There's no need to be sorry about bashing the Consumer Reports
reliability rankings; you join a large company of people who choose to
do so because the rankings don't agree with what they already 'believe'.
In the meantime, those of us who value consumer input rather than
manufacturer's claims will continue to use this and other measures for
Of course, I have no way of knowing for sure that other people who rate
their purchases for reliability do so fairly and honestly, anymore than
you or the other cretins have any way of knowing that they do not. We
do know that there's nothing to gain by not doing so, and the
reliability of the Hondas and Toyotas which have topped the reliability
rankings for years and years isn't disputed by anyone with two brain
cells to rub together - or by anyone with data to back up the disputation.
By the way, Consumer Reports covers at least six years of history. For
my Hondas, that's about 120,000 miles.
A shitload more than enough to tell you if the transmission falls out at
Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
That's the main reason they have never helped me; I typically buy at eight
to ten years and hold on to around 20 years. I would much rather know how
they do after ten and fifteen years. Even buying at five years would only
give the first year's data as a used car.
So you've only had it for 1 of it's many 11 years.
It could have many more hard poorly maintained miles than you would ever
You need to buy such an old car from an old original owner who maintains
it properly, such as me, but my '95 LH Chrysler is not for sale. <:)
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.