1991 Honda Accord SE from North America - Comments

Automatic Transmission replaced @ ~170K ($1200)

CV axles replaced @ 175k, both needed to be replaced again by 200K ($200 * 4 = $800)

Entire front suspension other than shocks and struts, which are currently starting to go, replaced between 180k and 200k ($1600)

2 out of 4 calipers, all four rotors, and all four sets of pads replaced between 180K and 195K ($1100)

Two out of four power windows non-functional, one window has 1/2 inch gap from seal when fully raised, other is very weak and slow.

Repeated, trivial brake light problems.

Entire exhaust replaced between 180K and 200K ($600)

Battery replaced @ 167K.

No matter how many times car is aligned, it pulls noticeably to one side or the other.

ABS non-functional, estimated cost of repair $1200.

Brakes ephemerally pulse, and always have.

Car shimmies between 50-60 mph (started around 190K).

Paint is fading.

They say Hondas run forever. They do. However, despite their resplendent motors, beware being nickeled and dimed by these great cars when they get higher mileage.

I had a civic before this, bought when it was 5 years old with 67K. By the time I got rid of it at ~210K, there was nothing other than the motor worth anything on that car. Most of the problems (suspension (both steering and ride), clutch, windows off track, paint fading, exhaust, etc., etc., etc.) began around 150K, were addressed, and returned before I got rid of the car. Guess it could be the servicers I was using in for both this and my accord.

Regardless, my accord is still a very comfortable car, and runs better (smoother, less laboriously) now than the 2004 Ford Focus that I had did in 2005.

Also, considering that of the nearly 200K I've put on my Hondas, about 150K of it was in pizza delivery in Chicago suburbs and on a college campus, they both held up well.

That being said, the maintenance of this accord has been outlandish. Bought for 3500, put at least that much into it. Not at all worth it.

As great as Honda's are, they're still a machine, and machines need maintenance. Since you got the car at 167,000, you probably inherited all of the smaller maintenance issues that were never done before then.

Yeah, I know it's expensive when you have to make all of those repairs in a short period of time, but don't say that it's not worth it.

That car might very well give you another 200,000 miles if you want to keep it. Some people just drive them, don't worry about any maintenance at all, and just unload them when all of the small things start to go wrong due to lack of proper care. Sounds like that's what you have. Don't blame the vehicle.

3500$ for a 17 year old car that is clearly worn out. Hey I'll sell you my '97 camry w/190k for 5 grand.

Good luck with the Honda.

Our family got our Honda BRAND NEW. Kindly explain why it fell apart at 90,000 miles while our domestics (which receive identical maintenance), have made it to over 300,000 miles in some cases with no problems.

I have 253,000 miles on my '94 Accord and everything works. the downside is the rust by the rear wheels and the interior getting dirty from use. Overall this car is still as tight as a 5 year old car.

I had a third gen 89 Accord 2.0 EX with the fuel injected high output A20A4 engine and auto trans. Great car, but it's funny to see how legends are being made, and what are the facts these legends are being founded on?

The urban legends of the 400,000 mile Accord is still very much alive I can see. Mine packed in at about 225,000miles (that's 360.000 km living in Europe as I do) and I had it from new. That's *very* respectable and I'm not complaining at all, but it's funny to see how many die hard Honda fanatics claims enormous mileage figures for their cars. I've never seen any 400,000 mile Accord, and the last few years I ran the Accord I had to scavenge the auto salvage yards for a lot of parts to keep it alive, so I know what I'm talking about. I saw several junked Accords and few was any substantial mileage beyond the 200,000 miles mark.

When my 89 Accord was sent to the junk yard it was not because it had a minor issue, it was because this car was totally worn out and the trans packed in completely and a new trans was too expensive. Also rust was a major issue and the car was partly resprayed several times as the rust kept poping up. My Accord got top maintenance, always garaged and always engine heater in the winter.

At about 130-150,000 miles (from about 210.000km) I had several issues with this car changing exhaust, absolute every moving part in the brake system, several parts in the suspension etc. This is very consistent with the experiences of the reviewer. In the end I had a lot of problems with rust in suspension parts making the car dangerous to run in high speed.

I would rate the Accord quality wise in the top, but just about the same as many of the other cars I've had like the Audi 100 5 cyl, or the BMW 520 6 cyl. And any Accord would fall short of the durability found in cars like the MB 300D (especially the W123 platform) or the Volvo 240, or in many American cars for that sake.

Keeping those urban legends alive... the dream of the 400,000 mile Accord will never die.

Spot on man. Accords are great but they ain't lasting forever like many are claiming. They last about as long as any other high quality car but will give fewer problems along the way.

My Accord is 53 years old and has over 3.2 million miles on it.

Never had to replace anything except 1 set of wiper blades...it's still running too.

I guess nowadays they don't make them like the used to.

Someone with a sense of humor! I love it.

You forgot to mention that you never had to change the oil.

Some of these commenters are offended because instead of buying a Honda they bought Contours and Grand AMs and have to preserve their dignity.

To the last commenter what facts do you have to back this up? I mean these comments are what myths are all about. Accords are great, but it seem it's 50/50 myths and reality when people talk about how good these cars are. My uncle had one some years back and it is always 'there was never anything wrong with this car' but I know the last 50,000 miles was problematic with a lot of expensive repairs, but he never talks about it. Also there is a lot of hardware from Detroit that has 'a million miles' on them like the Chevy truck I bought used 7 years back and still have, but I never hear myths about GM cars like this. Current mileage on my truck is 311.700 miles with one transmission overhaul. Original engine and axles, but the engine smokes a bit.

I currently have a 1990 Honda Accord SE Sedan. I have had minor problems with it, but other than that, nothing is wrong, with about 90,000 miles on it. Yes that's right, 90,000 miles on an 18, almost 19 yr old car sounds crazy.

My fiance and I bought it for $2000 about 4 months ago after she totaled my 2005 KIA Rio with 78,000 miles on it.. This Honda is just as good if not better than my old Rio for at least two reasons.

More horsepower, which makes it a lot more efficient on highways; the Rio didn't have enough power to keep a steady speed going up hill, and that leads two my second thing.

The 1990 Honda Accord has a lot better gas mileage than the Rio. Then again, put a 1.6L I4 104Hp 104 torque (RIO) VS 2.2L I4 140Hp 142 torque (Accord) and see who gets the better fuel mileage. The Accord will be able to go further with it's 17 gallon fuel tank vs the Rio's 11.9 gallon fuel tank, so you won't have to make as many stops. I guess I just wish I had gone with the Honda first instead of having to make payments on a piece of junk.