I think the older Honda's were much better than the stuff they put out today. I've owned 4 Accords through the years and all were reliable and good cars. However, the 1987 Accord DX 5 speed was the best car I've ever owned and fear the best I WILL ever own. Sure, the new cars are nice with a whole lot more goodies on them and maintenance is much less now, but the newer ones don't have the same "feel" as the older ones. What do you folks think?

I am going to be harsh...sorry.


I think your opinion ****s.


My car is the best looking Honda I have seen on the road...it's comfortable, powerful, and has all the luxuries I could ask for.

My 1990 LX had a great fit and finish and held up extremely well over time. That thing could take a beating!! On the other hand, I feel as if I have to baby my 06 LX-SE (maybe bc it's my first new car, maybe bc I worry about scratches dents, etc.) in order for it to last me for the long haul.

Still I can't complain, IMO the Accord is the best value on the market!

I've owned an 81 Civic, 83 Accord, 96 Accord and now an 06 Accord. IMO, Honda has improved a lot more than they've cut back. Although my 96 was a tight car, the 06 is light years ahead of it in terms of sophistication, refinement, engineering, etc.

old paint was better...but thats all I can think of.

I don't think that was the point. Everybody falls for the "it's got more features, it's quieter, it's faster, it handles better" blah blah blah. See that's Nissan's approach - look good on paper. I agree with him, our 86 Accord LX was cooler than my 99 :thmsup: I liked the 04 Ody a lot more than the 05 Ody, in terms of driving dynamics and all. Ridgeline and Element don't feel very Honda to me. The only thing that comes close might be the Civic Si, because of the nice engine

I think part of it is that other manufacturers have closed the gap with Honda.

Hondas were hands down one of the few technologically forward and dare I say 'styling' companies for awhile. Take the 1988 Civic. Double wishbone suspension all around. 4 models (sedan, hatch, CRX, wagon). Electronically controlled 4 speed auto tranny. SLick shifting 5speed manula. Sweet 16 valve engines that were powerful, clean, and fuel efficient (before "fuel efficiecy" became vogue again :lmao: ). No one even came close to anything in it's class. Like wise with the Accord and Prelude. My all time fave Honda is still my 1989 Accord LXi.

Today's Hondas are still a cut above the rest but today they're just ahead of the curve, they don't define it like they used to. But I do have to say that I'm almost embarrassed how the American companies have lagged behind. They have an interesting model or two but overall, blah. They routinely rank behind the Koreans in car comparisons. Recently CR ranked teh Azera over the Buick Lucerne. Um, who's been building car for decades longer? :thumbsdow

I think Honda has "loosened" its quality control over the years. Part of it, I am afraid to say is the shift from Japan built to North American build. Our 1983 was a tight little rocket, the 1988 was an awesome car. Our 1994 was our first US built Accord and was a solid car. However, we had a 1995 J-spec at the same time that was clearly tighter and felt more solid. And the great engineering "touches" like the scissor hinges ceased after 1995 as the cost control presures took hold.

The 1998 and 2001 Accords were wonderful, but not as magical as earlier models. I love my 2006, but it is definately more "Americanized" than any previous model. The lines are cleaner and more modern. I made this observation as a co-workers 6th generation Accord was parked next to mine. The bumper cover to quarter panel lines are cleaner and smoother on the 7th generation.

I would still put Toyota and Honda in the top tier above all the rest, but the gap has definately narrowed.

I think Honda has "loosened" its quality control over the years.

It seems like more and more quality issues are popping up for Honda, Toyota, and the other handful of companies that were always perceived to have the best quality materials in the biz. But I think much of the problem has to do with the newer materials that are being used today, too. Asbestos made great brake pads. Lead and paint went together like white on rice. And environmentally unfriendly but tactile pleasing plastics that would survive a nuclear holocaust were replaced by recyclable materials - the only problem is that they technically start to decompose while you own your car - that's what that film is on the inside of the windows. (Plastization) :paranoid:

I think you all have very good points and being the true car fanatics we are we see this.
Unfortunately we are a minority and manufacturers will continue to build to please the masses.
The cars coming in the future will be more creature comfort oriented and less quality & longevity oriented I fear. Sad state of affairs :thumbsdow

I1 :)

well I think they might come across as 'less' reliable (as with all cars now days) because of the technology going into them, in 1987 you didn't have to worry about a gyroscope or accelerometer going out, with newer technology and more features there are more things to break or misbehave or stop working..

Over all Honda (and Acura) have come a long way as far as interior quality, the newest stuff has a very nice look, all of the switchgear has a much better feeling compared to previous years.. But imo Honda has always had good stuff, my sisters 2nd car was an Accord 89 SE-i, had a nice Bose System, 4 wheel disc, alloy rims, sunroof, leather, keyless, etc. -- I really liked it, and I am in love with my 01 EX (WHICH I REALLY WANT BACK FROM THE BODYSHOP)..


BUT! I wouldn't mind an 02 TL Type-S Black on Black... soooooo nice looking!

in 1987 you didn't have to worry about a gyroscope or accelerometer going out
Although that's true, I'm not 100% convinced I need these either...see: iDrive, Mercedes MCS, Audi MMI, scam, useless, expensive, confusing :lmao:

Although that's true, I'm not 100% convinced I need these either...see: iDrive, Mercedes MCS, Audi MMI, scam, useless, expensive, confusing :lmao:


I have used Audi's MMI and I really like it.. at a car show I was in a 645ci w/ iDrive & XM, I'm sure I could figure it out (eventually) but first impressions MMI is way better than iDrive..

I would have to sum it up like.. Let's say Audi and BMW made computers, the Audi computer would have a keyboard and a mouse, the BMW would just have a trackball.. PITA! :)

MBs COMAND system..HAH! No idea, don't even want to try, I'm very much in love with Hondas voice activated stuff.. "What time is it" "climate control 72 degrees" etc.. very nice and fun :)

I don't know why everybody is so afraid of the COMAND. It's so simple. You can press a button to type in radio stations with real numbers instead of having to scroll all the way thru. I just wish the screen weren't so big and useless

The 7th gen Accords, as a ride are probably the smoothest riding car's I've ever been in. They aren't bad on the eyes either. I could do without some of the extra features and stuff cause I'm old fashion. I just see it as something else that can tear up. I do however wish my Accord had cruise control. I would probably drive it a bit more if it did. The 5th gens are probably the best looking overall IMO.

"The cars coming in the future will be more creature comfort oriented and less quality & longevity oriented I fear. Sad state of affairs

I1 "

Sadly, I agree.

Although, the smaller Japanese and Korean manufacturers may pickup the ball and run with it. Afterall, it took Toyota and Honda several generations to develop there engineering prowess. I think they've lost that "eye of the tiger".

The only accessories I really appreciate are AC and Cruise, the rest just add complexity and cost. Just give me a drivetrain I can have faith in, if well maintained, for the long run.

I just wish that they bring back the gas struts for the trunk like my 5th gen had. They did not take up any trunk space when closed. Is that asking too much?

The late 80's models were Honda's best when considering the competition and how far ahead they were at the time. Owned an '88 Civic LX and Accord LXi Coupe that were so refined and fun to drive, they made every other car seem ordinary. Even the '89 Legend LS and '91 CRX Si my parents owned were something special when compared to the competition.

But today, as good as my Accord is, I do not think the Honda magic continues as strong as before. The competition has copied and refined to the point where their best products match or surpass Honda in so many more ways. It may have alot to do with the fact that Hondas are so much bigger and heavier (thus less zingy and fun...think S2000! :banana:) and that a new generation of Americans will accept less precise quality control as before. :thumbsdow (NOT me!)

The Honda name still means something, but AFAIK, it means less than it used to.

Unless you go for the overpriced maintenance hogs (audi, volvo, VW, etc), cars today are as reliable as ever, although they are also much more complicated. Honda and toyota are still a cut above the rest in terms of reliability, bang for the buck, and mechanical quality (maybe not the auto's, hah). If you look at the newer, more delicate paint processes (also friendlier to environment) as a bad thing, then sure, there's one thing. There are also a few minor rattles in the newest generation, but I've driven some absolutely horrible cars in terms of reliability and quality that were very, very rattle free, so I don't think that's a good way to really judge quality or the meat of a car. Mechanically, however, the only other company that I would really trust as much as Honda is Toyota. The thing that seems to plague cars today, however, seems mainly to be petty electronic problems in overcomplicated radios, nav's, climate controls, etc all mashed into one much of the time. When something went wrong with any of that before, it was generally a relatively inexpensive thing to fix, not so with many recent vehicles. More often than not in cars that I have owned (or my family), I have had to replace a head unit because the factory unit failed or was on the way out, but that option seems to be going the way of the dinosaur sadly. As far as cost efficiency and manufacturing, that has always been and always will be a factor. Make as much money as you can while spending as little as you can to produce the product. Outside of (some) charities, good luck finding one that doesn't lean in this direction to some extent.

As for americanized hondas, I think that is more due to the fact that pretty much EVERYTHING is a little more high-tech than it was in 1989 (and obviously more high-tech in 89 than it was in 70, etc). The differences between an 89 accord and an 06 accord seem to fit right in with that idea, at least to me. As for size, the civic is still a tiny car, though the accord seems to have grown significantly since I owned my 95. I assume this was simply to further differentiate the two models to attract a larger overall consumer base.

I'd have to say that I woulld agree that the paint has been better in the past compared to the way it is now. I enjoyed my Horizon Gray metallic paint on my Gen5 Civic DX. And come to think of it, having had no power windows and locks was actually better because there is less to break and less sophistication in the end.

I'd have to say that I woulld agree that the paint has been better in the past compared to the way it is now. I enjoyed my Horizon Gray metallic paint on my Gen5 Civic DX. And come to think of it, having had no power windows and locks was actually better because there is less to break and less sophistication in the end.

Yep, cheaper overall, but that technology is old enough by now that failure should be a very rare thing (unless you own a VW :dunno: ). The pieces of tech that make me nervous have more to do with the nav, radio, and air all sharing the same screen on the dash. Sort of putting all your eggs in one basket and making them too complicated to realistically and reliably fix yourself without replacing the whole head unit. I don't know if it's money or convenience technology that has yet to be perfected, but its a royal pain (for me). Maybe in a few years when most cars have systems that are incorporated like that then we'll see the reliability of power windows instilled into the excess tech on the dash. Then again, maybe not.

Accords are geting priced out of our price range now. My mother is about to buy her 4th Accord. She wanted a new one but we can't afford it so she's having to get an 03-04 with about 40K miles. Personally, I liked the 5th gen Accords best. They looked sweet and were the best styled IMO. :thmsup: But I gotta show some love for my 4th gen too :D

while my 91 has soooo many small problems with it, and it has fading paint. i don't think i'd get a new car if i had the money. i fell in love with that car the first time i drove it. sure it doesn't have a nav system, or working cruise, but there's just soemthing "right" about it.

Accords are geting priced out of our price range now.>>>

I don't see where Accords have really increased that much in price, or at least not within the last 10 years. The MSRP on my 96 EX was $21k. Today, the MSRP on an EX is somewhere around $23k.

My 99 EX was $20,900 and a new EX is $22,550...I consider that quite a big increase. They've put in more features and there's inflation and everything, but $1650 is $1650 no matter how many ways you split it :yes:

My 99 EX was $20,900 >>>

They must've gotten a price cut either in 98 or 99 because I had the original window sticker in my 96 which listed the MSRP as $21,500 and $21,900 after destination charges. The original owner's didn't even get a CD changer in the trunk or keyless entry for that amount (unless they kept the changer and lost the remote :dunno: ) The stereo was just an AM/FM unit with a cassette player and the car just had the usual std. EX features.

I paid $11,000 for the car from a dealer in 2002 w/ 45k miles.

Ok lets thing about this for a minute: 1994 Accord EX $20,187 (http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm?Vehicle=1994_Honda_Accord&ReviewID=32)

$1128 for a car 5 model years later = 1999 Accord EX $21,315 (http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/midsize-cars/honda/accord/1999/index.html)

$1235 for a car 8 model years later = 2007 Accord EX $22,550 (http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_descriptions.asp?ModelName=Accord+S edan&Category=EX)

I don't see what the big deal is here the price is less than 6% more 8 model years and 1 generation later :dunno:

Ok lets thing about this for a minute: 1994 Accord EX $20,187 (http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm?Vehicle=1994_Honda_Accord&ReviewID=32)

$1128 for a car 5 model years later = 1999 Accord EX $21,315 (http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/midsize-cars/honda/accord/1999/index.html)

$1235 for a car 8 model years later = 2007 Accord EX $22,550 (http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_descriptions.asp?ModelName=Accord+S edan&Category=EX)

I don't see what the big deal is here the price is less than 6% more 8 model years and 1 generation later :dunno:
So like I said, money is money regardless of inflation, extra features, etc. I can make the argument to you that because the Euro is stronger, paying an extra $5000 this year for a BMW that was $5000 cheaper last year is absolutely justified...then again do you care? In your POV, it's still $5000 isn't it?

So like I said, money is money regardless of inflation, extra features, etc. I can make the argument to you that because the Euro is stronger, paying an extra $5000 this year for a BMW that was $5000 cheaper last year is absolutely justified...then again do you care? In your POV, it's still $5000 isn't it?

I don't consider $154 a year a big price increase even if the car didn't have extra features. If you do, that's fine.

don't consider $154 a year a big price increase even if the car didn't have extra features>>>

Nor do I, especially considering how much more Accord you get for the money. Setting aside the features, you get better engines with improved performance and efficiency, much more refinement & sophistication, sturdier structures, better platform rigidity, etc. Not to mention the advancements in overall design, safety and engineering. I'd say that's definitely worth the less than 6% price increase, especially over the 4th and 5th generations...but, to each their own.

I kind of like the styling of the 4th generation. I think I'd kind of like an EX 5 speed - figure it might be a fun little 2nd car to have. I wouldn't want the automatic seatbelt they had initially so I guess I'd need a 92 or 93 (owned a 91 Camry with this feature once and thought it ****ed). But anyway, it's been a long time since I've actually driven one of this era. Anyone have much experience with these? How do you like how they drive compared to 3rd or 5th generation Accords?

I like the 5th gen Accord better than the 4th but they're both pretty compareable. I believe the 5th has a little more room and is definately a little more aggressive looking. My 91 is pushing 255K miles and still running strong and still for sale.

When I first started buying cars, (and motorbikes) it was normal to take the head off, reseat the valves, decoke it, fit new valve springs etc, every 30k miles, at 60k you often had to drop the sump, undo the con rods, fit and 'scrape in' new white metal bearings, fit new rings and maybe oversize pistons as well, even a rebore and sleeves sometimes. :paranoid:

Skimming up the dynamo commutator and replacing the carbon brushes was another routine job.. And at 50 mph the old cable brakes needed 5 miles to stop in!! lol...

Not many cars went beyond 80K due to the chassis rusting out. I recall seeing 4 yr old cars with rust holes in the floor, and door sills you could shoot peas through!! So my vote is for the more modern cars overall..

But I still wish they would all make a really basic version available for people like me that believe 'simple is best' E.G. where can I get a diesel auto that is ECU free?? The answer is.. I can't, no one makes one. So my ZX is going to have to last a very long time..

Soon we wont be able to buy cars that have no cruise, no sat nav etc, they will all have auto everything including a paddle gearbox.. So there are things that I miss about the old cars, basically, I miss their simplicity.. :(

So far the only job I have done on the Accord is to strip down and clean the throttle assembly, unfortunately the ECU wouldn't allow the engine to start afterwards! And sorting THAT out was a mega problem! Arghh! On the other hand I could strip my ZX to a thousand bits, and provided I reasembled it correctly, it would start again when I turned the key! :) :yes:

PS. I also hate personal computers. :lmao:
.