| Year of manufacture | 1990 |
| First year of ownership | 1999 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.5L Automatic |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 9 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 9 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 8 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.4 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 0 miles |
| Most recent distance | 0 miles |
| Previous car | Pontiac Firebird |
Summary:
This is a very reliable car
Faults:
O2 sensor went bad.
Automatic seatbelt on the passenger side broke, covered by Honda lifetime warranty.
Burning/leaking oil.
General Comments:
This car is great on gas.
Handles very well.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 19th March, 2004
| Year of manufacture | 1990 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.6L Don't Know |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 7 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.3 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 189000 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 254000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Honda CRX |
Summary:
If one is in the market for an economical and reliable sports car, this is it!
Faults:
The engine had a "knock" when cold ever since I owned it.
It started to burn oil and developed a minor oil leak at about 230,000k.
Sometimes, as I am trying to start it, the engine light will go on, thus not allowing it to start. I then have to give it a lot of gas for it to eventually start.
General Comments:
Other than the above mentioned "quirks", it is an excellent car!
It is economical, handles like a sports car, and VERY reliable!
I LOVE IT!!!
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 24th February, 2004
| Year of manufacture | 1990 |
| First year of ownership | 2000 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.5 petrol Manual |
| Performance marks | 9 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 9 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 10 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 10 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 9 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
9.4 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 140000 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 175000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Honda Civic |
Summary:
An excellent well balanced car
Faults:
The only thing that went wrong was a problem with the back wheel axis, it seems the car was in an accident resulting the axis being re-fixed, resulting in the back left tyre being a lot quicker consumed (in it's inner side).
General Comments:
Good things:
1) the Car is fast, I mean really fast, both accelaration and top speed. I can zip from 0-100 in 9.5 seconds. I have reached speeds of 170KM/h and I'm sure the car can go beyond that (I stopped accelerating then).
2) Not only is the car fast, it's also build like a sports car: the cornering and handling is simply incredible.
3) It can also go places normal cars wouldn't go (up mountains, flooded roads, really rough terrain etc)
4) It's a sheer pleasure to drive, very comfortable and shock absorbing.
5) It's cheap to buy.
6) It's economic, VERY economic, measured by myself to do 58 miles per gallon (that's 100km with 4.5 litres) at 100km/h.
7) It's very reliable, bought it used in 2000 and drove almost 40000 km so far, never let me down once.
Bad things: the car loses A LOT of performance when you load it with people, put 2-3 people inside and the car's accelaration suffers.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 13th January, 2004
I think you exaggerate on some things my friend.
0-60, I clocked it around 10-10.5 seconds, which is quite fast, but after that performance drops significantly.
Top speed is about right; I topped it reaching 175 on level ground. To go any faster you need a downhill.
However I have to disagree on handling. The car understeers heavily under pressure and can turn easily to oversteer when decelerating. Furthermore the handling worsens to an immense degree when the surface is watered or slippery. The chassis feels very flexible and cannot always predict with extreme accuracy on what's going to happen next when pushing to the limit. On the other hand, the handling is reasonable for a family saloon.
Comfort is OK; nothing spectacular, nor completely bad.
Fuel consumption is also a point I disagree. Normally I get to do 400-450Km on a tank, so it's around 10L/100Km (mixed)
It's a basic family saloon, not a sports car nor an offroad.
Build quality feels better than the mainstream rivals of the time, and the AC/heating unit is just about perfect.
Engine reliability is legendary.
| Year of manufacture | 1990 |
| First year of ownership | 2003 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2003 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.6 Manual |
| Performance marks | 9 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 2 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 7 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 4 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 5 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
5.4 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 84000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 86000 miles |
| Previous car | Rover - Austin 200 |
Summary:
Bargain B Road rocket
Faults:
Drivers side window jammed open twice.
Passenger side window jammed open once.
Radiator blew and it overheated on and off for months before that.
General Comments:
Love the car for it's acceleration and handling, this is the fastest car I've had yet. I Smile every time it passes 4,000rpm as it flies. It does have and interesting habit of torque steering. It slides all over the shop in the wet, but this is the car I've learnt to slide in and it is a hoot. I think the handling could be cleaned up with something other than the budget tires that are on it now. Apart from the reliability I can't fault it apart from I'm used to the power now and am shopping for a Turbo kit...
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 27th December, 2003