13th Dec 2007, 10:03
Original poster here: I was getting ready for a barrage of comments from people who think I am crazy for buying an old 98.
I have ordered a Honda CD player for 35 bucks. I decided against getting an expensive Alpine like my Civic.
14th Dec 2007, 09:05
Spending 7 grand on a 10-year-old Honda? You could have got the same year Taurus, Malibu, or Intrepid for less than half that, and had a more comfortable car.
20th Dec 2007, 09:50
There is no way I would put my family into a death trap Intrepid. The cab forward design will not be fun in a crash. Look at the crash test. You might be the best driver in the world, but someone else will hit you.
My sister will be the primary driver, but I maintain the cars. My friend has a 99 Concorde LXI and it is built with the worst materials I have seen in a car. I would not buy another Taurus because of transmission problems my family has had ranging from 1987 to newer fish bowl Tauruses. Well, yes I could have bought a 98 Taurus for 2 dollars, but why? I am not that frugal. We once had a 1987 Taurus that had the engine replaced three times in 13 years. Paid more to fix it than to buy it new. NEVER AGAIN!
This 1998 Accord is in mint condition. It can get up to 100 miles per hour and still be agile on the road. The LX offers great features and is a comfortable car. I routinely drive my other 99 Accord to Fargo, Chicago, Des Moine, Cincinnati, and Detroit and have had no problems. Next year I am going to Portland. I would never trust the LH's or Taurus for that rigor. The Accord is light years a head of the Taurus and LH platforms.
20th Dec 2007, 14:00
Having owned and enjoyed 4 Hondas in my life, I can attest to the inherent value in Honda Accord and Civic. They are worth the difference. Rarely did anything go wrong with the vehicle, other than normal maintance and age-related items, and they were very fun to drive. Honda, particularly the pre-2000 ones, are worth the used car premium that they command.
20th Dec 2007, 15:59
That's interesting. Do you think that post-2000 Hondas have seen a decline in quality or durability compared to pre-2000? I'm interested because now that it's essentially 2008, you can consider the 2003 models in the standard "used car" category being 5 years old, hitting the lots after they're being paid off or traded by the original owners. I'd like to know if there is some dividing line in quality at 2000 that would make a person be more skeptical of "newer used" Hondas.