This may explain why I still see a few Accords of the early 90s on the road, but hardly ever spot any late 90s ones. It also explains why my friend's 99 began exhibiting transmission problems at 70K miles, even though the car had been babied and never had any hard usage. The whole time she had the 99, she said it never measured up to the 87 Accord she'd owned earlier. My biggest comment on it was that it was such a blandly ugly white sedan, not nearly as attractive and well-designed as the 92-93s.
I own a 2001 Honda Accord. I never had any problems with the car. It's 10 years old now in December. Love my Accord.
People buy the VTEC 6 for the performance, as 0-60 is under 6 seconds. But Honda disgusted me so much I left after buying them new for over 2 decades. They got poor for us after 2000. We buy GM with V8s. The take the same 93 octane as our TLs. The Legend new was one great car, but what happened? We are done with Hondas.
My 99 Honda Accord V6 is running strong after 14 years with no major problems. Only at 120000km the alternator was replaced. Now the mileage is 340000 km, and it's still running strong.
I heard American Honda's of this era (1998-2002) had problems, but Europeans hadn't. I would like to buy a 2000 3.0 V6 automatic. But then I read your review. I wonder if there is a difference between the US automatic gearboxes and EU ones, though that would be kind of odd, I think. I still drive a Toyota Corolla TS right now, has about 82,000 miles. The 'Rolla is faster, 6 gear manual, etc... but I was looking for comfort in this beautiful Accord. I guess I will have to think about it more thoroughly.