Those 6-sp trans just do that as a normal function.
Our 1998 CRV has 150k. original everything except brakes and TB. It needs some rear swaybar links and some front end work, but overall, a good vehicle to own.
My 2007 Accord Coupe 4-cyl Auto has been fine at 38k. Paint is a lil thin. Starter fails to spin once in a blue moon. Ride and handling are great. Motor and trans are excellent. Interior is great. I'm pretty picky, but I'd give it a 9/10. Made in Ohio.
btw- Critic, I checked the rear brake pads are over 1/2 remaining.
My 2006 Acura RSX was made in Japan and was complete [censored]. Other Acura loaners I had were much better.
I have no interest in any other cars for awhile. My Accord is efficient, reliable, cheap, fun and comfortable.
Anyone else dissapointed by Honda cars?
- Thread starter Huie83
- Start date
- Status
Food for thought. afaik, there was a worldwide crunch in parts quality c.2001-2004.
My 1998 Audi went thru 50k warranty with ZERO warranty repairs.
My 2002 was chock full of glitchy goodness.
Not me... I love my car.
I'm not even going to read through this thread. Blah blah blah, my grandpappy drove Chevys, Hondas suck, Yugos suck, Toyotas suck, Fords suck. Who cares. 
The reason that newer cars don't hold up as well is because people demand more and more chrap. Like 5 speed automatic transmissions, an 18 speaker stereo system, navigation, dual mode climate control, 8 airbags, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, keyless remotes, power everything, auto wipers, 18 cupholders, 3 power outlets, heated seats, etc, etc, etc.
Yet on the other hand the government and customers demand higher gas mileage, forcing manufacturers to keep reducing weight and adding ever more expensive technology to increase MPG, like hybrid cars and cylinder de-activation. Also year after year people demand a safer car, but really how impact resistant can you make a unibody steel box before returns become negligible? Physics are still physics, no matter how you slice it.
You want the ultimate in reliability? Get yourself a bare bones RWD full frame car, with a low power V8, no power accesory options, no safety features (except maybe a seat belt), no traction control, nothing. Oh, wait, they don't make anything even CLOSE to that anymore.
Point being the more junk you jam into a car, all the while trying to lighten it (which are contradictory points), you are going to suffer on the reliability front.
Most modern cars do just fine, considering that cars of old (even up until the 80's) were routinely junked around 100k or less. If you want to go back to the days of points ignition, carburetors that always needed tuning, vacuum operated everything, and massive body rust, be my guest.
The reason that newer cars don't hold up as well is because people demand more and more chrap. Like 5 speed automatic transmissions, an 18 speaker stereo system, navigation, dual mode climate control, 8 airbags, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, keyless remotes, power everything, auto wipers, 18 cupholders, 3 power outlets, heated seats, etc, etc, etc.
Yet on the other hand the government and customers demand higher gas mileage, forcing manufacturers to keep reducing weight and adding ever more expensive technology to increase MPG, like hybrid cars and cylinder de-activation. Also year after year people demand a safer car, but really how impact resistant can you make a unibody steel box before returns become negligible? Physics are still physics, no matter how you slice it.
You want the ultimate in reliability? Get yourself a bare bones RWD full frame car, with a low power V8, no power accesory options, no safety features (except maybe a seat belt), no traction control, nothing. Oh, wait, they don't make anything even CLOSE to that anymore.
Point being the more junk you jam into a car, all the while trying to lighten it (which are contradictory points), you are going to suffer on the reliability front.
Most modern cars do just fine, considering that cars of old (even up until the 80's) were routinely junked around 100k or less. If you want to go back to the days of points ignition, carburetors that always needed tuning, vacuum operated everything, and massive body rust, be my guest.Oh, and to the OP, Hondas don't suck anymore than any other car make. Are they as bulletproof as some people claim? Yes and no. Some models are, some aren't. It would be impossible to have 20 different models of cars that are ALL rock solid. Every manufacturer has problem cars, and (almost) every manufacturer also makes super reliable models.
I admit that I am pro Honda and very glad GM won't be around in 10 years.
Could not understand how to fix.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Those 6-sp trans just do that as a normal function.
Originally Posted By: AcuraTech
I'm not even going to read through this thread. Blah blah blah, my grandpappy drove Chevys, Hondas suck, Yugos suck, Toyotas suck, Fords suck. Who cares.
The reason that newer cars don't hold up as well is because people demand more and more chrap. Like 5 speed automatic transmissions, an 18 speaker stereo system, navigation, dual mode climate control, 8 airbags, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, keyless remotes, power everything, auto wipers, 18 cupholders, 3 power outlets, heated seats, etc, etc, etc.
Yet on the other hand the government and customers demand higher gas mileage, forcing manufacturers to keep reducing weight and adding ever more expensive technology to increase MPG, like hybrid cars and cylinder de-activation. Also year after year people demand a safer car, but really how impact resistant can you make a unibody steel box before returns become negligible? Physics are still physics, no matter how you slice it.
You want the ultimate in reliability? Get yourself a bare bones RWD full frame car, with a low power V8, no power accesory options, no safety features (except maybe a seat belt), no traction control, nothing. Oh, wait, they don't make anything even CLOSE to that anymore.
Point being the more junk you jam into a car, all the while trying to lighten it (which are contradictory points), you are going to suffer on the reliability front.
Most modern cars do just fine, considering that cars of old (even up until the 80's) were routinely junked around 100k or less. If you want to go back to the days of points ignition, carburetors that always needed tuning, vacuum operated everything, and massive body rust, be my guest.
The reason that newer cars don't hold up as well is because people demand more and more chrap. Like 5 speed automatic transmissions, an 18 speaker stereo system, navigation, dual mode climate control, 8 airbags, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, keyless remotes, power everything, auto wipers, 18 cupholders, 3 power outlets, heated seats, etc, etc, etc.
Yet on the other hand the government and customers demand higher gas mileage, forcing manufacturers to keep reducing weight and adding ever more expensive technology to increase MPG, like hybrid cars and cylinder de-activation. Also year after year people demand a safer car, but really how impact resistant can you make a unibody steel box before returns become negligible? Physics are still physics, no matter how you slice it.
You want the ultimate in reliability? Get yourself a bare bones RWD full frame car, with a low power V8, no power accesory options, no safety features (except maybe a seat belt), no traction control, nothing. Oh, wait, they don't make anything even CLOSE to that anymore.
Point being the more junk you jam into a car, all the while trying to lighten it (which are contradictory points), you are going to suffer on the reliability front.
Most modern cars do just fine, considering that cars of old (even up until the 80's) were routinely junked around 100k or less. If you want to go back to the days of points ignition, carburetors that always needed tuning, vacuum operated everything, and massive body rust, be my guest. 05 Accord 4 cyl automatic-coming up on 110K: only problem has been an ignition coil, and I fell partially responsible, as washing the engine can do this (per driveaccord.com)
Replaced tires at 95K, replaced battery at 80K, still have original brakes.
Sign me up for another, but the local Honda dealer (joyce Honda) will NEVER get my busiess-rude, arrogant bunch of bustards
Steve
My only experience with Honda cars is our '02 Civic that we bought new and now has 147000 miles on it. This car has been beat up pretty good and is on its third front bumper, the most recent one due to a semi trailer spewing its tire tread at 75mph on the Interstate. It also sports a mashed-in left rear quarter panel from when my wife backed into a fire hydrant.
Mechanically, the car has been stellar. This is what I have done in 7.5 years:
-three sets of tires
-29 oil changes
-timing belt at 112000 miles
-new plugs at 110000 miles
-new battery
That is it.
Even the front brake pads are original! I just checked them last week when I rotated the tires and they are getting close to replacement time. Due to the fact that it averages 36 mpg, it is generally the first car out of the driveway in the morning and the last one in at night. It may not look like much but I intend to see how far a Honda will run. Of course the best feature of all is that it is paid for. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
Originally Posted By: Anies
Sheisty people printed out 2 stored CarFax reports which indicated no damage. Literally 6 months later my fiance's altima was having all sorts of problems and she wanted to get rid of it. The GM dealership printed a fresh carfax that showed her vehicle was in THREE accidents before she had taken ownership of it. Nissan 46 had to have forged/edited the documents because it looked different to what was presented to us. Ran a carfax on her fathers car and same thing, 1 airbag deployment.
I don't think the consumer "demands" all those extra's. Its the markets the people who do trend analysis's etc. I want a car thats reliable and has a cd player with MP3 jack. Thats it. My Xterra is an XE model, plain jane. Power windows/locks. Bought the Pioneer headunit for 79 bucks at bestbuy and had them install it so i can hook my Zune up to it.
Anytime you add a bunch of electrical goodies into a car its nothing but a headache. My impala was a nightmare, actually getting the BCM replaced so it should rectify most if not all the issues it has.
New cars and trucks focus way to much on appearances than reliability. Cars are now roving homes. Trucks ride like cars with their suspension systems etc. I never understood why people would spring for a full audio package from the dealer raising the cost of the car several grand. I would buy it with just an am/fm and get an aftermarket system installed if i wanted it.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I admit that I am pro Honda and very glad GM won't be around in 10 years.
My answer to the question is simple....NO....
I've been disappointed by both Honda AND Toyota as of late - they're becoming cheaper and cheaper by the day. The new Pilot, Fit and Insight are filled with cheap, hard and tacky plastic. Mechanically, they're still decent cars save for their self-grenading trannies. My neighbor had the tranny on her 1999 Odyssey grenade, Honda put a new tranny in it(after I topped the ATF off with MaxLife :)), a year later the steering rack almost feel apart at freeway speed.
Honda can't make a hybrid to save their lives, I see IMA as a less-[censored] version of GM's BAS "hybrid" system.
Toyota isn't immune to these issues either, although I do admit the 2007+ Camry is decent for what it is - and Toyota did acknowledge tranny issues on the Camry/Avalon/ES350, just took them a while to address them. I will say, the "old" 2nd gen Prius had the best interior out of the 2007+ Toyota lineup.
Last edited:
Not at all...have had 3 Hondas in the family...all were bulletproof..the last one was an 02 CRV that only required basic oil service and some tires but was retired early when totalled. I know several long time Honda owners who all swear by them. 2 are former GM employees. I wouldn't think twice about getting a Honda again.
They keep their resale value way better than the GM garbage I have wasted tens of thousands of dollars on. Besides who wants to support the UAW after they have robbed the US treasury...kind of like sending money to Al Capone IMO. 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PT1
... Besides who wants to support the UAW after they have robbed the US treasury...kind of like sending money to Al Capone IMO.
I obviously don't have much beef with Honda products. I've owned US, Euro, and Japanese cars. Each has their merits. Each has their issues. In my experience, overall reliability has never been a concern with my 02 Honda. I blew up the a/c once (I accidentally overfilled) and paid half price for the repair. Little did I know, the dealer was replacing them free even out of warranty if I had asked and not claimed responsibility. Other than that, the CR-V needed a new o2 sensor and cat at 100k miles. But considering it took it 7 years to get to that point, I can't really see it as that big of a deal.
Likewise, my parents were GM only people for the longest time. After seeing how much I liked my V, they bought a v-6 Accord. 5 years and 85k miles later, it's only been to the dealer once, and that was b/c some rodent chewed through an o2 sensor wire.
Parent's and my purchase inspired my brother to get a 2.4l Accord. 4 years and 300k miles later, he tops off with oil but no other major issues.
I'd also have to argue over interior quality. A cheap car is a cheap car, no matter the decade or the make. Only the price changes. Not that I don't like the Cobalt, but I'd be willing to put my Fit's interior up against it any day, much less that of an Aveo.
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Other than that, the CR-V needed a new o2 sensor and cat at 100k miles. But considering it took it 7 years to get to that point, I can't really see it as that big of a deal.
- Status
