Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:ssGdnUWDyt21PPzVnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in the
>>>> bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go nuts for
>>>> them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
>>> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
>>> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...
>>
>> the price is being bid up by people wanting gas sippers as well - even
>> more demand than usual. but you can still get a sedan for under $1k,
>> it's the hatchbacks that are in demand.
>
> I see...
>
>>> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
>>> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
>>> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
>>> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
>>> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
>>> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
>>> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
>>> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
>>> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
>>> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
>>> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
>>> towing costs..
>>
>> eh? "constant fear"??? statistically, a new car has a greater
>> probability of failure than one that's in the middle of its life.
>> [bathtub curve]. at 176k miles, my civic is in the middle of its
>> life. there are certain weakness in this vintage civic, main relay
>> being the most notable, but it doesn't cost much to sort that stuff out.
>
> Main relay, or - bigger problem like head gasket.
> I am seeing blown head gasket the major fear of
> older civic owners compared to other japaneese cars.

in my experience, gasket only fails after the radiator cracks and the
motor cooks. the gasket goes about a year later. moral of the story,
replace the radiator every 10 years.



>
>>> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
>>> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)
>>
>> as elle says, if you know these vehicles, you can save a bunch of
>> dough. my 2000 civic depreciated at about $1,100 per year that i
>> owned it. i couldn't spend that much a year in maintenance on my 89
>> if i wanted to. and the 89 has APpreciated in value since i bought
>> it, not DEpreciated.
>
> But compare the benefits of driving 2000 year model year with 89.
> Yes, it is more expensive but it is a better car overall.

i strongly disagree. my 89 is a much superior vehicle to the 2000.
better handling, better interior, better ergonomics, better power to
weight...

only thing going for the 2000 is full electronic control of the
automatic transmission, but the benefit of that is marginal, especially
if the mechanical auto transmission is properly adjusted and has the
right fluid.


>
>> and that's not accounting for the fact that certain models are better
>> than others. imo, the 88-91 civic/crx is about the best car honda
>> ever produced. i've tested/owned subsequent models of civic and they
>> neither handle as well, nor are as comfortable as these first "real
>> deal" 4-wheel wishbone civics. so that's why i drive them - they're
>> the best.
>
> I am glad you are so enthusiastic about this little car :-)

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
> news:_Aq8k.2171$%q.968@newsfe24.lga...
>> "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DELETE.THISljvideo.com>
>> Elle wrote
>>>> Folks who know nothing about automotive engine systems
>>>> should not buy such old cars.
>>>>
>>>> Those who know these cars and have the time to work on them
>>>> stand to save a lot of money.
>>>
>>> It's the kind of car you get for your young son, and let him fix it
>>> up for
>>> the fun and experience. It's not a serious daily-driver for anyone.
>>
>> For anyone who has taken their c. 1990 Honda beyond 200k miles, a
>> second Honda with 120k miles original engine or 163k miles body and
>> 70k mile engine can result in a daily driver.
>
> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
> No head gasket problems or any other major things to worry.
> But I KNOW THIS CAR! Every day of its history since May'98.
> It does not mean I would seek a camry that old from a stranger.
>
> No matter how much time you spend inspecting the car at the
> seller location there will always be something that can
> surprise you after the purchase and cost you in a long run...
>
> Look yourself at your original post - how many cars you
> have already seen and rejected? How much time and gas
> you spent driving there to look for them? How long more
> you are going to look for this crazy-cool'89 civic deal?
>
> Is it really worth so much trouble? :-)
> Maybe is not rational anymore but just emotional? ;-)

but that's exactly the situation with your rejection of the older
vehicle! it can be completely rational to purchase it if you know what
you're doing and the price is right!

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:as6dnTxMQuzWo__VnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> rubbish. mine's a daily driver. and at 40mpg freeway, you can bet
>> that's serious too.
>
> Freeway 40mpg? I think it is just average for a small car like civic.
> You should achive it easily with modern models of nissan sentra.
>
> I make 32mpg easily on my 4-cyl 2004 accord coupe EX-L.
> And it is not just freeway for me, its probably mixed 80/20.
>
> My 1995 camry does not perform as good anymore @ 246k miles.

there's a bunch of things you can do that might help. egr valve, tw
sensor, valve lash... - it needs a little love.

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
> No head gasket problems or any other major things to
> worry.
> But I KNOW THIS CAR!

Agreed, not knowing the history is one of the drawbacks of
buying a secondhand (or thirdhand or more) car. Carfax
helps a lot. I reject a car with too many owners in too
short a time, for example, of which there are many out
there, at least on Craigs List where I am.

I am seeing consistently that the little c. 1990 Civic
hatchbacks feel somewhat too much like a death trap. The DXs
and base model hatchbacks do not have power steering, plus
the suspension bushings generally seem worn (though I could
fix this), so the road feel is generally lousy. Then too
they are small and cramped. Great mileage, but I like
feeling a little more like I am not the smallest, most
vulnerable vehicle on the road.

Only one of the circa 1990 Civics I have seen had what I
would call very good a/c. It also had a great body and 166k
mileage, with only two owners. I made an offer on it, but as
JBeam observes, offering more than KBB was not quite enough,
and it got snatched at a significantly higher price before I
could counter. I was testing the waters. Now I am seeing
good, newer c. 1995 Civics sell within two hours on Craigs
List.

Having driven a few 95-97 Civics now, I am leaning towards
spending more and making this second car the one that will
replace my 91 Civic in a few years. Meanwhile my friend will
use the newer one for commuting in summer, then use my 91
Civic (no a/c) the rest of the year.

Like you were saying when comparing cars, the newer ones
have a much much better feel. I am not in a rush. Which
means I end up saving as much as a few thousand dollars.

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:g3r112.2ao.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:qaOdnR15lNvs6_3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> i've seen up to $3k on craigslist for stock 88-91 civics here in
>> the bay area. that's if you can find one. the local ricers go
>> nuts for them. even harder to find now that gas prices are high.
>
>
> If this is true that this car is in demand beween ricing
> enthusiasts than it will be very hard to compete them
> for somebody who is looking for an economy car...
>
> I can hardly imagine what good could come from
> buying such an old car anyway. Yes, you could probably
> find a cheap one but it will not be in good condition!
> You spend a lot of time looking for it, driving around
> for inspections spending money and time to find one.
> Then, when you find one it will not be over...
> Is your main goal not to have montly payments? You
> *will* be paying montly (or weekly) payments anyway
> but to the local parts store instead to the bank and live
> in constant fear that the car will crap out on you in the
> middle of the trip spoiling a day and causing you some
> towing costs..
>
> Does not seem to be such a bargain to me,
> but you know, I am very spoiled ;-)

California cars rarely rust. There are many older vehicles available
that are in very good physical condition. If well maintained, they
can be fairly trouble free vehicles......

 

Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> I got my 1995 toyota camry when it had 47k miles in 1998.
>> Since then I hapily drive it still today, with 246k miles.
>> No head gasket problems or any other major things to
>> worry.
>> But I KNOW THIS CAR!
>
> Agreed, not knowing the history is one of the drawbacks of
> buying a secondhand (or thirdhand or more) car. Carfax
> helps a lot. I reject a car with too many owners in too
> short a time, for example, of which there are many out
> there, at least on Craigs List where I am.
>
> I am seeing consistently that the little c. 1990 Civic
> hatchbacks feel somewhat too much like a death trap.

what an odd statement! they're only 27cm shorter than your 4-door
sedan, and they both have an identical wheelbase. the only reason they
could feel worse is if something is wrong.

> The DXs
> and base model hatchbacks do not have power steering,

the automatics have power steering.


> plus
> the suspension bushings generally seem worn

that may be a valid point. i forget that i replaced the bushings and
the shocks on both my current cars as soon as i got them, so they both
drive like new.


> (though I could
> fix this), so the road feel is generally lousy. Then too
> they are small and cramped.

how are they different to your sedan? and i can tell you for fact,
there is more interior room in my 89 than there in in the subsequent
generations. get a tape measure out.


> Great mileage, but I like
> feeling a little more like I am not the smallest, most
> vulnerable vehicle on the road.
>
> Only one of the circa 1990 Civics I have seen had what I
> would call very good a/c. It also had a great body and 166k
> mileage, with only two owners. I made an offer on it, but as
> JBeam observes, offering more than KBB was not quite enough,
> and it got snatched at a significantly higher price before I
> could counter. I was testing the waters. Now I am seeing
> good, newer c. 1995 Civics sell within two hours on Craigs
> List.
>
> Having driven a few 95-97 Civics now, I am leaning towards
> spending more and making this second car the one that will
> replace my 91 Civic in a few years. Meanwhile my friend will
> use the newer one for commuting in summer, then use my 91
> Civic (no a/c) the rest of the year.
>
> Like you were saying when comparing cars, the newer ones
> have a much much better feel. I am not in a rush. Which
> means I end up saving as much as a few thousand dollars.
>
>

 

In article <iSQ7k.1145$oY2.648@newsfe21.lga>,
honda.lioness@spamnocox.net says...

> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>
> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
> days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
> revealed: (a)
> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
> it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
> how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
> trouble.

[...]

> Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
> advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
> VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
> when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
> and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
> cars are sold at auction?

I've found Carfax to be quite useful on several occasions in the past.
The $35 30-day membership is cheap compared to the cost of a car, and
the Carfax data isn't always 100% accurate or complete, but as long as
you recognize that, it works pretty well for a quick-and-dirty
assessment of past problems.

One of those Carfax dealer ads is how I recently acquired my '00 Civic
Si. I'd been looking for a clean, unmolested '99-'00 Si for a couple of
months with limited results - most of the ones I ran across via
Craigslist or another local forum were either ragged out from rough
treatment, had high mileage with no way to verify the service history
(or lack thereof), or had modifications I wasn't thrilled about. I'm not
entirely averse to modded cars when they're well thought out and done to
a professional standard, but those kinds of cars tend to be the
exception rather than the rule.

Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was considering
going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something like "you
might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic Si with only
53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone and called
them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused initially when I asked
about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly offered that they
still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned out that
they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days previously. It was
still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, was filthy
inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until they'd checked
it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever having been
wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and the interior
was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned up quite
nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the lot. The only
flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds slightly. There's a
TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse gear cluster
(and probably the synchros), but given how much that's likely to cost,
I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

Anyway, your supposition about Carfax automatically finding cars like
this is probably correct - it certainly hadn't been advertised anywhere
by the dealer, and the various salespeople I talked to were all
mystified as to how I'd found out about it. This particular dealer
claimed that their policy was to never buy cars at auction, but they
didn't say whether that policy also extended to selling cars at auction.

Dave

 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote
> I've found Carfax to be quite useful on several occasions
> in the past.
> The $35 30-day membership is cheap compared to the cost of
> a car, and
> the Carfax data isn't always 100% accurate or complete,
> but as long as
> you recognize that, it works pretty well for a
> quick-and-dirty
> assessment of past problems.
>
> One of those Carfax dealer ads is how I recently acquired
> my '00 Civic
> Si. I'd been looking for a clean, unmolested '99-'00 Si
> for a couple of
> months with limited results - most of the ones I ran
> across via
> Craigslist or another local forum were either ragged out
> from rough
> treatment, had high mileage with no way to verify the
> service history
> (or lack thereof), or had modifications I wasn't thrilled
> about. I'm not
> entirely averse to modded cars when they're well thought
> out and done to
> a professional standard, but those kinds of cars tend to
> be the
> exception rather than the rule.

I am finding this problem with Craig's List, too: Too many
darn kids with their crappy mods selling cars owned by a
zillion people already.

At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
(say 70k - 170k miles).

> Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was
> considering
> going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something
> like "you
> might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic
> Si with only
> 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone
> and called
> them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused
> initially when I asked
> about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly
> offered that they
> still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned
> out that
> they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days
> previously. It was
> still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing,
> was filthy
> inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until
> they'd checked
> it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever
> having been
> wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and
> the interior
> was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned
> up quite
> nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the
> lot. The only
> flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds
> slightly. There's a
> TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse
> gear cluster
> (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's
> likely to cost,
> I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

I am trying to pounce on these, too. Gotta pay dealer used
prices, but as I say above I may be willing to at this
point. Every time I call the dealer rep says it's been sold
or they have to check on it. I will stick with it, though.
The dealer cars seem to always check out with pretty clean
titles on Carfax.

I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing
the ads pop up.

Good post. Thanks.

 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in message news:MPG.22cf17112840dc9198a23a@208.90.168.18...
> Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was considering
> going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something like "you
> might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic Si with only
> 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone and called
> them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused initially when I asked
> about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly offered that they
> still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned out that
> they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days previously. It was
> still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, was filthy
> inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until they'd checked
> it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever having been
> wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and the interior
> was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned up quite
> nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the lot. The only
> flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds slightly. There's a
> TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse gear cluster
> (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's likely to cost,
> I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse.

Dave, I have bad news to you... I got a 94 sentra with same issue on
5th gear and after about 10 months there was no 5th gear anymore...

I hope you did not pay a lot for it.

Good luck!

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
> (say 70k - 170k miles).

Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
Not mentioning 1989 :-)

> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing
> the ads pop up.

There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
when the car shows up listed in the range of model
years / trims you selected...
My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:g43c1l.4m8.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
> news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
>> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
>> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
>> (say 70k - 170k miles).
>
> Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
> for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
> model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
> Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
> on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
> Not mentioning 1989 :-)

? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is
rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning
(it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow.
It too checks out with Carfax.


>> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
>> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and
>> seeing the ads pop up.
>
> There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
> when the car shows up listed in the range of model
> years / trims you selected...
> My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.

I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems
to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers
do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold,
etc.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:y5f9k.9070$rH1.7031@newsfe20.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
> news:g43c1l.4m8.0@poczta.onet.pl...
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message
>> news:S2d9k.1421$oY2.331@newsfe21.lga...
>>> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth
>>> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage
>>> (say 70k - 170k miles).
>>
>> Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage
>> for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your
>> model year list it is 11-12 years of service...
>> Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should
>> on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more...
>> Not mentioning 1989 :-)
>
> ? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is
> rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning
> (it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow.
> It too checks out with Carfax.

I am not doubting cars like these are there on the market...
You might want to wonder if 1995 with 55k miles is real or not.

Inconsistent is that you call 70k a "high-mileage" in the
range of model years you are considering for purchase.
Maybe I am little strange, but for me 95 model year,
13-14 years old car with 177k miles (12k/year) would be
low or average mileage car. 140k or anything elss than that
would be extremely low mileage for an old car like this.

>>> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this
>>> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and
>>> seeing the ads pop up.
>>
>> There is an option to be notify with e-mail message
>> when the car shows up listed in the range of model
>> years / trims you selected...
>> My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you.
>
> I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems
> to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers
> do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold,
> etc.

I am not talking about search engine.
I am talking about automated system emailing you a list
of new cars EVERY day to your inbox. Call their support phone
line and ask for it if you cannot find it on their website.

 

Elle wrote:
> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda
> Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations:
>
> -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30
> days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it
> revealed: (a)
> Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage
> being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported
> mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third;
> it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to
> how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some
> trouble.
>
> -- Most persistent major mechanical problems have been poor
> air conditioning and suspect CV joints. I watch especially
> for blown head gaskets. So far for around half a dozen cars
> I have actually examined: no residue on the oil cap; oil in
> the reservoir; smell from exhaust pipe; white puff from
> exhaust pipe.
>
> -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to
> regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay,
> autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers do
> not like to deal in cars that do not involve financing, so
> low price beaters generally are not advertised for sale by
> them. Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an
> advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with
> VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe
> when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it
> and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these
> cars are sold at auction? Craigslist people have all been
> good about meeting at the designated time and test driving
> (though I almost always have a friend with me). Craigs list
> sellers where I am have been mostly but not entirely honest,
> at least insofar as the carfax checks indicate.
>
> -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to look
> for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used dealer. A
> fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's list at a mom
> n' pop used car dealership. I went to see it. Great body,
> engine compartment sparkled, fluids looked clean and topped
> off; but no muffler; no radio; check engine light was on;
> windshield was cracked, miles advertised were 124k and
> carfax said it was in fact over 271k miles a year ago. I am
> considering making a very low offer (after telling the
> dealership about the flawed title tampered odometer) just
> for the shell.
>
> Further advice?
>
>

one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i
consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage -
lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on
the ex and si models, not the lower models.

i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i
> consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage -
> lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on
> the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>
> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.

Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?

Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags?
Would you prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?

How would seat belts work after 20 years of service?
Are you going to replace them with new ones?

Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band)
then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests?
Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test
performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year?

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what
>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage
>> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars
>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>
>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
>> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
>> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.
>
> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?

do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if
you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read what
it says about that.

abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something
like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing
the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the
vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll
consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking
and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks.


>
> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?

i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of
gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory,
not airbags. just like in race cars.


>
> How would seat belts work after 20 years of service?
> Are you going to replace them with new ones?

depends whether they work or not! as a matter of fact, i /have/
replaced a seat belt with a retractor problem, but that's just me. the
inertial lock still worked ok.


>
> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?

mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.


> If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band)
> then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests?
> Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test
> performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year?

if it were rusty enough to be structural, i either wouldn't drive it or
i would have it repaired. but it depends of the nature of the beast.
cosmetic rust, say at the bottom of a door or the bottom of a wheel
well, means nothing to crash safety. structural rust is the only kind
that truly matters and, as you may imagine, it takes a /lot/ more to
rust out thick structural components than thin cosmetic ones.

i recall seeing some crash testing of rusty vehicles some years ago, and
the researchers were "surprised" to find that the rusted out boxes of
crap they'd found were no worse in crashes than the unrusted ones. i
guess that, like you, they hadn't bothered to think about the facts.