27th Feb 2003, 13:03

What's this, I don't think I have heard right. You wouldn't buy another Honda just because the windows came off the tracks. I am assuming that you test drove the car before you bought it, therefore I would assume that you knew your husband wouldn't fit into it. If you find the car hard to clean, adjust the seats so you can get under them. This website is where people come to see if the car has been reliable or not, not if its easy to clean.

29th Jun 2007, 23:17

Nope, this website is for all types of comments on cars, not just how reliable they are. I love the fact that every honda owner here who posts a review has friends, relatives, and neighbors who have "well over 250,000 miles on their Civic/Accord with no problems at all." Sounds like someone is getting a bit bored at their coporate desk job. Face it, no matter how much propaganda honda and its lemming owners put out there, not everyone likes their cars, including me. Funny how all the hundreds of negative/blue sad face reviews about honda that were here a month ago have almost all been erased.

I'll admit they build a good product, or at least at one time did. I think the fact that Ford, GM, and Chrysler have built so many rotten products lately has given honda a reason to become conceited, and now they have some serious catching up to to (with their own reputation). My cousin owns a 2005 Accord LX V6 with 42,000 miles and achieves about 28-32 MPG highway. I own a 1988 Oldsmobile 98 Regency with 346,000 miles on engine number one and transmission number two that also that also achievs 28-32 MPG highway. If and when this car finally dies, I can find a similar one with low miles for under $4,000. And parts are dirt cheap compared to any new car.

True, the Honda is a bit quicker, and will run circles around the Olds on twisty roads, but after 20 years The U.S., Germany and Japan still can't or refuse to build cars that achieve better fuel mileage than the so called "unrelaible gas guzzlers" we built in the 80's. Don't start with the Insight, Prius, Fit, Camry, Corolla or any hybrids either, because many 4-cyl 5-speeds 20 years ago were easily capable of 35-40 MPG highway (Chevette, Escort, Omni) And many still had a carburetor. And were far less ugly.

I owned a 1985 Buick Skylark in college in the late 1980's, close cousin to the Chevy Citation, one of the supposed worst cars ever made. Plain jane 2.5 liter fuel injected push-rod four banger, with 4-speed manual. 26 MPG City/35 MPG highway. Finally bit the dust 6 years ago at 231,000 miles. Hondas back then rusted out so quick that it didn't matter how long the engine lasted, the body would fall apart long before that. Even Hondas from the 90's like to rust really fast. Anyone know the MPG ratings for an '07 Corolla or Civic? You will find that they aren't much different. The 2007 honda Civic si is actually much worse, and far overpriced.

I also own a 1978 Chevy Caprice with an ancient 5.7 Liter, 350 Cubic inch 4-barrel carberated V8. 128,000 miles and runs and drives like a new car. 3-speed automatic. No sensors, No Computers, No Vtec, No satellite nav or on star, simply starts every day and drives down the road. 15 MPG City/21 MPG highway. My brothers 2006 Dodge Charger RT with similar size engine and 5-speed automatic 16 City/23 Highway, this with 2 to 4 cylinders programmed to shut down at highway speeds.

And I own a 2006 Nissan Altima SE-R, and a 2004 Ford Taurus, so yes I do own and drive newer cars too. I collect older cars, classics, even cars from the 1980's, because period point blank they are just as economical, easier to maintain, and far more reliable, whether foreign or domestic, tyhan new cars. I've owned several Hondas, a 1992 Accord LX 4-cyl, 1997 Civic EX, and a 2001 Accord LX V6. The 1992 lasted well over 200,000 miles, and then all the electrical/computer stuff started to nickel and dime me to death so I got rid of it. The '97 Civic was Wonderful, traded it for the '01 Accord which was terrible.

Someone wake me up when we can build a domestic or foreign rear Wheel drive car with a smallblock v8 that achieves 20-30% better fuel economy than the ones built 20-30 years ago. Until then, I guess I'll just keep "living in the past" :-)

30th Jun 2007, 19:41

My 1994 Honda had 257,000 before we sold it and our Avalon had 260,000 miles when we sold it. They were both better cars than your Oldsmobile was, and I bet they would have gone to 500,000 miles had you driven it as much as your olds!

I got 41 miles per gallon on the '94 Accord BTW and I am also 20. I bought the Honda with 200k, drove it to 257k in two years, and no problems. That Olds would not have survived.

And do not compare a Chevette or Escort to a Insight, Prius, or Fit. At least the Honda and Toyota are decent cars. Back in the 80's some Honda's could get over 50 mpg.

1st Jul 2007, 22:28

First of all, I'm not here to bash Honda, just to prove the above comment wrong.

I'll compare anything I want. My argument stands, after 30 years the U.S., Japan and Germany still can't or won't build more efficient cars. Performance has improved, while reliability and fuel economy have not. Diesel Chevettes and VW rabbits were also capable of well over 50 MPG. Your statements contradict themselves. Your saying my Olds never would have made it that long, 257K? Well if you paid any attention, you would have noticed that my Olds already has well over 300K on it. And if a transmission or engine finally does go out, I can get one a lot cheaper than an Accord or Avalon transmission. Honda owners try to brag about high mileage cars; just like everyone else on here, you claim to have owned one with over 250K, and no problems.

Honda owners brag about what GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars have been capable of for years. Go to the GM, Ford and Chrysler boards and check out some of the reviews there, especially of 20 and 30 year old full size cars, many of which are still on the road. Here's just one of many good ones: http://www.carsurvey.org/review_13020.html.

Import fanatics focus on one bad model from a huge company like GM, and assume that all their cars are the same way, as they spew their funk around the world. What about Civics and Accords 20 years ago, and even in the 90's, that rusted out after 5 years? Does that mean we should avoid all Honda's since they're rust buckets? And until recently there were about 3 times as many domestics on the road as imports, so of course you will hear about more problems.

Can't say anything about the Civic Si's rotten fuel economy, can you? I enjoy leaving them in the dust with my Altima SE-R. My car puts out twice as much torque and HP at 2000 RPM as the Honda does through all RPM ranges.

22nd Dec 2008, 11:38

I'm not going to say the Civic isn't a good car, since I've never owned one, but I will say that I'm not at all impressed with what I have witnessed/experienced. Someone I know bought an '01 Civic with 89k miles. The cloth on the doors was already falling off the door panels, the cloth on the sunvisors was coming loose, the in-dash CD changer didn't work, and the headliner was sagging, and both power front windows barely worked. He replaced the driver side motor and it worked better, but still not as good as it should. This is supposed to be good? Sounds like shoddy quality to me. Hard to justify paying thousands more for a Civic, and more for its insurance and maintenance, just to experience it deteriorating so quickly, costing the owner that much more. Sounds like a rip-off to me! Add up all those extra Honda expenses. Cha-ching!