My brother was driving my car the other day and while reversing, went into lamp post which damaged the car from the passenger side quite badly. I don't think its worth repairing so I'm thinking I'll put it through my insurance (No Claims is protected).
I think the car would be a total lost as its an old car and I can't imagine insurance would be bothered to fix the car.
Looking at what to buy and I quite like the Accord. Thinking of getting 2.0 hatchback. My budget is around £1500 and there are quite a few available around that price mark. Anyone got any experience with this car? As its Honda, I'm presuming it'll be a reliable car. Mrs has got Honda Civic with 1.6 VTEC engine and its been spot on so far.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=137
|
We had a V reg 2.0 hatch for a few years - good engine but body quite solid ie. heavy so not as quick as you might think - 10s 0-60 IIRC. Had to rev it a bit to get the best out of it, but quite smooth. Interior seemed quite robust and generally decent quality.
Only real problem was over the course of our ownership the orange engine light came on twice, indicating a problem with an emissions sensor. This cost a couple of hundred to fix, again IIRC, which put us off a bit. Not sure if that is a common problem.
|
|
|
I've got a 2.0 petrol accord hatchback from 2001, I bought it with 45k on and it's now at 70k, and has been pretty trouble free.
Fuel economy is about 30MPG, and it goes quickly enough but I wouldn't describe it as a drivers car.
I like the fact that it's fairly well equipped, mine has digital climate control and cruise control. If I was buying again I'd try and find one with the leather seats. The original stereo was naff, it was cassette only, so I changed that pretty soon.
It's a comfy car to commute in and, much as I'd like to change it for something newer, I just can't justify the cash when this car costs me so little. It's definitely value-for-money motoring.
You might want to look at the 1.8, I think the performance is almost the same and you get a bit more out of a tankful.
|
Lou you've got me confused now. I looked at the mpg figures for 1.8 and 2.0 and there's hardly any difference so I thought I'll go for a 2.0 one. Hopefully I'll be able to get more gadgets in it. Really want one with climate and cruise controls. :)
Do these cars have rust problems?
My Mazda isn't rust proof at all.
|
I had another look at the fuel figures, and you're correct there's barely any difference. Sorry for the confusion, I was convinced it was a bit better.
I'm not sure how much you'd notice the difference in performance either, it seems like there's a 10BHP difference which isn't much really. In any case, I'm happy with the performance of the 2.0, it's quick enough if you rev it to 6500.
I believe cruise is standard on SE and above (at least if you're looking at the 99-03 model), so should be easy to find. The digital climate control seems to have been an option on SE, so may be a little harder to find.
Never seen any rust on mine.
|
|
|
|
Looking at what to buy and I quite like the Accord. Thinking of getting 2.0 hatchback.
Hm. A bit juicy for these days. If it goes wrong, and it'll be getting on a bit, it could be quite expensive.
|
FotheringtonThomas What would you suggest then?
The other cars I'm sort of looking at are Vectra (old shape) and Bora. But I doubt it both of these cars would be anywhere near as reliable as an Accord and definitely won't have the sort of gadgets Accord has got.
|
If your budget is around £1500 and you want a car of that kind of size I don't think you can do better than an Accord.
Unless the OP is planning on doing loads of miles, diesel doesn't really pay off and with no DMF or DPF there are fewer things to worry about.
The Accord of this age isn't what you'd call a desirable car, but it is a comfortable, reliable workhorse.
|
I had a great 2000W 2.0 Exec (not many extras - beige velour seats but cruise control and A/C) and it was great. In some ways I wish I still had it, though it was thirsty (I would get round 30 mpg - but went most places at an indicated 80-odd). Got rid of it when it developed problems which I think would have been resolvable by a new ignition barrel.
2.0 is a little faster and a little thirstier on paper - I think it's just preferable, because it's a heavy car and my MiL's is the 1.8 which I found a little too slow - though still not sluggish.
|
I think any car around the age you are looking for will have the potential for some problems but I reckon that it is at this age a well engineered car still looks and feels fairly new. I would go for the Accord as I believe Honda have a well deserved reputation for first class engineering, with products that will stand the test of time. Hondabeat.com has lot's of examples of cars that have done 200K to 300K in the US (so will have had regular oil changes) with no problems.
You asked for other suggestions - I would also look at the Avensis and Subaru Legacy - these may more difficult to find though. The Avensis is the choice of Taxi drivers around my neck of the woods and I have seen these with huge mileages but still looking fresh.
Just a word of warning about having no claims protection - my personal view on these pilicies are that you will have your NCB protected but the initial premium will rise significantly that you should still expect your premium to rise as a result of making an insurance claim. It will be interesting to hear what you experience when you do it.
|
Thanks for all your replies so far. I'm glad most of you agree Accord is the best car to get with my budget. As for the car being thirsty it won't be an issue. I only do 20 miles round trip commuting daily and odly drive to Leeds and Manchester. Mrs has got smaller car which would be used for shopping etc..
As for premium going up, it went up a bit this year anyway even though I haven't made any claims for past 3 years. I know the premium would go up but I don't think it'll affect me as much as it will if I get this car fixed myself.
|
|
|
|
