What is considered to be the most realiable car of the last twenty or thirty years?

[Roland Deschain]

I currently have a 1994 Toyota Corolla with 307,000 miles (and I change the oil every 50,000 miles whether it needs it or not!). It has power that seems as good as the day I bought the thing slightly used from Budget Rent A car back in 1996. The only repairs I've ever made on the car are a clutch, two alternators, brakes and a timing belt ( it does need a quart of oil about every 1,200 miles, but I'm not complaining). Some people have told me that the Honda Accords and Civic's from the same time period are even more reliable. I'm looking to purchase a second "back up car" next year and would like to get one that is as reliable or even more so. I've noticed that of the ten or so Honda's from the early 1990's that I've called about in The Trader at least three have engine damage from broken timing chains they suffered (I have not encountered this issue with any of the Toyota's I've called about). In addition, it seems like the Honda's sell for about a $1,000 premium over the old Toyota's (that is comparing Corollas to Civic's and Accord's to Camry's ). Are they worth the extra money? Am I on the right track by only considering stick shifts (my thinking is that a clutch is much cheaper to repair than an automatic transmission)? Is there another model of car out there (maybe Nissan's or Mazda's) that are equally or even more reliable? Is there "A" year which represents the best of the best in terms of cars from this era (anything I look at will be at least seven years old so we are talking about 1998 as the most recent I would consider).

[TheLoadedDog]

I'd back the Toyota Corolla.

I bought my '96 one in '02. It's a 1.6 litre manual, bog standard. Admittedly the previous owner was an elderly gent who had had it since new and it was only ever used on runs to the shop I think - only 44 000 km on it, but since then my wife and I have taken it up to about 120 000 km, and all we ever do is the regular service. I have NEVER added any fluid to it myself. Oh I check the levels sure enough, but they are always brimming up until the next service. And right up until the day of the service the old oil looks pretty clean considering.

We've never replaced anything in it other than a battery (which is a consumable). Touch wood.

The thing can move too when you ask it to. I love that car.

[Cisco]

If you're going back 30 years, nothing can touch the classic Beetle. There's one out there somewhere with over a million miles on it.

In the 80's, I think the Honda Accords reigned supreme. My uncle had a hatchback one (probably about an '84 or '85) that he just beat the living crap out of. Ruthlessly and constantly. That thing was like a tank.

[xash]

Moved to IMHO.

-xash
General Questions Moderator

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Corollas, especially those in the mid to late 1980s, were phenomenally reliable. Not much looks wise, though.

[Gorsnak]

I don't think Hondas are worth a price premium over Toyotas if you're just looking at reliability. Mazdas and Nissans are pretty good, but probably a notch or two below Honda and Toyota in the reliability department. If you're looking to save money, you could look into domestic cars made with Japanese drivetrains - for example, I believe for part of the 90's the Ford Escort was largely Mazda 3-series beneath the skin. A car like that you might get the Japanese reliability without the price premium that Hondas and Toyotas carry on the used market.

[Soul Brother Number Two]

I drive an 84 Accord. I got it from my FIL when they pried his license from his cold, cranky, irritated, stubborn, bitchy, cantankerous, contumacious hands.

It's my favorite little car ever. I replaced the timing chain so as to forswear the aforementioned engine damage, and she just passed smog!

essvee and 84 Honda Accord, 2gether 4ever.

[DWToml815]

I had an 85 Accord untill about 3 months ago. It had 270,000 miles and had only had timing belt, cluth, and stuff like that. Right about the time it 19 yrs old the original radio went out....that was crushing...

[MLS]

If you're going back 30 years, nothing can touch the classic Beetle. There's one out there somewhere with over a million miles on it.


Are we old enough to remember the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper?" The part where they find an entombed VW Beetle in a cave, dust it off and it runs! It had top gas milage for its day, too, although many of today's cars do better.

[Wesley Clark]

What kind of reliability are you referring to since there are several ways a car can fall apart (age, miles, types of driving, etc)? Some cars may be able to handle alot of miles but do not hold up over the long run. ie, there might be a car that will handle 40000 miles a year with no problem but once it gets to be 7 or 8 years old no matter how many miles are on it it starts to fall apart. Some cars may not hold up under city driving while others hold up well. Some theoretically can last 15 years but fall apart once you hit 100,000 miles.

Having said that, i'd stick with the tried and true honda and toyota family. Accord, Civic, Camry & Corolla. They may not be the 'most' reliable but they are easily in the top 10 of all the cars you can purchase and i'm sure the difference between them and the most reliable (assuming cars are more reliable than them) is negligible.

[friendlyfoe]

the toyota tercels and corollas and the honda civic and accords through the early nineties have the data, if they are maintained, they easily run 2-300,000 on one single motor. the clutches are reliable also. going into the nineties, the motors don't seem to have the longevity of the older ones. I had 1980s hondas which bodies rotted, but kept going full force.

if you maintain and fix an old vw yourself and shop around for the cheapest(vw parts are expensive) parts you might be in first place for most reliable.

[Cisco]

(vw parts are expensive)
Expensive where? If you want them used, there are VW graveyards all over America where you can get parts for next to nothing. If you want them new, JC Whitney is pretty reasonable. I believe you can completely rebuild a motor out of that catalogue for about $600. What are you comparing that to that makes it seem expensive? A lawnmower?

[hajario]

If those dipshits had replaced the timing chain at 90k miles like they were supposed to, they wouldn't have engine damage. I've been very happy with my Honda Accord and my wife has one too but I'm not qualified to say that it's the most reliable.

Haj

[Magiver]

mid-80's Honda's were great motors. The oil rings would unseat but that only caused a small puff of smoke on startup. The carburetors were also great but I suspect they are expensive to overhaul. Not sure why carbs got so expensive to repair. You use to be able to buy a rebuild kit for $7 and you were back in business. Can't say I appreciated the plastic tank radiator or the brake master cylinder. Both of which took a crap early in the life of the car. Everything else held up.

[Weirddave]

If you want to go back a bit further, the straight 6 that they put in the 70s era Dodge Darts runs forever, although the body might not hold up. In my personal experience, the 4 cylinder engine in most 80s VWs is a real winner, 3-400k miles easily with proper maintenence, but some models had electrical problems (more common on models from early in the decade). As mentioned, parts are plentiful in junkyards, and VeeDubs are generally easy to work on. Oil changes are a snap, literally they take less than 5 minutes in a driveway.

[Hostile Dialect]

Early 90s Accord would be my choice. (Looked better than the 80s Hondas, too!)

My mother's 1990 (91 maybe? whichever was the last year they made them) Cadillac Brougham has given her about 14 worry-free years so far. The brakes started to wear down a little at the 12- or 13-year mark, I think, and every once in a while now the car will start making some odd but not that noticeable noise. Other than that it's run great with basically standard maintenance.

I had a few friends with early to mid 90s Corollas or Accords (Accords and Civics seemed to be everywhere in San Diego--I once counted 9 in one trip) and they're both fine and very reliable machines.

[Tentacle Monster]

94 Accord here, with over 170,000 miles on it. I've taken it on many long road trips. It'll take me to California for Christmas and New Years this year. The only problems are:

It doesn't like to start when it's frosty.
It growls a bit between 1500-2000 RPM.
The smegging fan control knob broke; so when I want it to blow more or less air, I have to take it off, take off the temperature control knob, put it where the fan knob was, and turn. And sometimes at night I'll drop the knob, so the illuminated area behind the knob shines at me like the Eye of Sauron.
There are stains in the back seat that indicate that a small child exploded in it some time ago. I keep it covered up with trash, though.
I need to strip off some tinting from the back glass that's gone weird and hard to see through.
Too many paint flaws and dings to count.

Other than that, it's a great car.

[mike1dog]

Am I the only one who thinks it's strange you're getting a back up car for a ten year old car? I'd be getting a newer car and keeping the old car for backup. Really, maintenance of the car you're buying is what you need to look for. If you can, check the ownership history of the car. If it has changed hands many times, it may have a problem that is too expensive to fix, and they sell it off rather than fix it. I put 250k miles on a 92 ranger, and would still be driving it if some idiot(without insurance) had not run into me at a traffic light. I have however seen cars that people never do any maintenance on that are junk at 30k miles.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

I learned how to drive on a 1977 Toyota Corolla hatchback that my mother bought new in '77, a year before I was born. It was still going strong (for the most part) by 1996, when I was driving it to high school during my senior year, although it had major rust problems all over the body (I used duct tape and band stickers to hold it together) and leaked badly whenever it rained (which in Miami was a lot). We finally gave it to a friend who was going to put the engine into an airboat he was building, but it was a great little car--despite my friends having dubbed it "The Blue Hemrrhoid."

[Dag Otto]

I put 250k miles on a 92 ranger, and would still be driving it if some idiot(without insurance) had not run into me at a traffic light.

I'm going to put in a vote for the Ranger also. I have two, a 91 with 300,000 miles that I bought new and a 88 with 198,000 miles on it (and the original clutch) which I've had for a year (both with the 2.9l engine and manual transmissions). The nice thing about them is the body on frame construction and rear wheel drive layout. Maintaining one is easy and relatively inexpensive. No expensive items to replace like CV joints, struts, or timing belts.

[Roland Deschain]

I getting a back up car percisely because my old car has so many miles on it. I've told my wife that I intend never to buy another vehicle and pay more than about $3,000 for it. Also, my 1994 Corolla has gone over 300K with the worst imaginable maintenance ( I'm a real cheap, lazy slob). I've have only changed the oil AT BEST every 50,000 miles (although as indicated above I do have to add a quart about every 1200 miles or so). In fact, I didn't change the oil at all between 200 and 300K miles. Also, I've NEVER changed the timing belt, not even once.

Even if the engine goes to crap now (and there are no signs that it is) because I haven't changed the oil, think of all the money that I've already saved. If I had gotten an oil change every 5K miles at $25.00 per oil change I would have spent over $1,500 on oil changes by now.

[Gorsnak]

Just a note: changing the timing belt doesn't do anything for the engine except guard against the timing belt breaking. If the timing belt does break, the results are, well, extremely bad. Failure to change the timing belt will have precisely zero negative effects until the thing breaks.

[beltbuckle]

If you're going back 30 years, nothing can touch the classic Beetle. There's one out there somewhere with over a million miles on it.

In the 80's, I think the Honda Accords reigned supreme. My uncle had a hatchback one (probably about an '84 or '85) that he just beat the living crap out of. Ruthlessly and constantly. That thing was like a tank.

I wouldn't call the beetle a reliable car. Sure, it is cheap and easy to work on, but I have yet to see a beetle go several hundred thousand miles without an overhaul. If there is one that has 1 million miles, I bet the engine has been rebuilt 10 or 15 times. My dad had one, my friends have had them... seems like every 50k miles we were rebuilding the engines. They were reliable in their day, but don't even compare to the japanese cars.

[Wesley Clark]

I'm going to put in a vote for the Ranger also. I have two, a 91 with 300,000 miles that I bought new and a 88 with 198,000 miles on it (and the original clutch) which I've had for a year (both with the 2.9l engine and manual transmissions). The nice thing about them is the body on frame construction and rear wheel drive layout. Maintaining one is easy and relatively inexpensive. No expensive items to replace like CV joints, struts, or timing belts.

Booya, ranger owners of the world unite. I only have 99k on my 1999 but it still has had no real problems other than replacing the brake pads on one axle and cleaning out the air injector since it was clogged.

www.carsurvey.org is a good place to get info on reliability if you trust people posting their own personal experience. I bought the ranger since it had tons of good reviews on reliability from other owners.

A chevrolet Prizm might be in your budget Roland Deschain and its built similiar to a Corolla. And if your Corolla went that far w/o an oil change it must have been made on krypton. At the end of the day you probably won't find anythign better than a honda or toyota. You're actually supposed to replace the oil every 3k miles though.

[TheLoadedDog]

Cape York Peninsula (the pointy up bit on Australia's top righthand side) is tropical jungle with few towns past its base. It is also a 4WD heaven. Tourists from the cities go up there in their shiny 4 x 4s to tackle the track that leads to the very tip. It's muddy and bumpy. You have to cross rivers, fallen trees, etc etc...

What do the tourists drive?
Toyotas, Nissans, GM, Fords, Mitsubishis, blah blah blah.

What do the locals drive?
Toyotas. All of them. Make of this what you will.


Some of them are thirty years old. Rusty, no glass in the windows, headlights missing, fuel tank on the roof with a garden hose running from it. But they keep plugging away. Others are brand new. And everything in between. But those guys ALL drive Toyotas, and they thrash the christ out of them.

In general, you'll find that elsewhere in Australia, in conditions ranging from snowy high country to baking outback desert, to the tropical jungle mentioned above, non-city people tend to prefer Toyotas. Part of this is the fact that every town in Australia seems to have a Toyota dealer and parts shop (their parts service is superb), but the main reason is their reliability. This includes old codgers who would otherwise say such enlightened things as "The only good Jap is a dead one", and whom you would expect to be loyal to Australian metal (like the redneck bikers who have "jap bike destroying festivals"), but they are not. They love their Toyotas. And with good reason.

Of course, Toyotas LOOK dead boring. They never have had much in the way of style, but I can live with that.

[Roland Deschain]

I have also added Duralube about every 30,000 miles (usually replacing one of the quarts of oil that I have to add every 1,200 or so miles anyway). However, I'm not really convinced that Duralube does anything it's just that I'm afraid to break the ritual since it's worked to this point.

This is one of those question that I could definitively settle if I had alot of bucks (won the lottery ect). I would follow a random sample of automobiles (lets say 10,000 for fun) of various years, makes, and models (lets say since 1985 to keep it simple). I would make sure to include a wide variety of drivers, and those with a great variety of maintenance habids (for example it may well be that Hondas are MORE reliable than Toyotas when equally maintained, but that for poorly maintained vehicles Toyotas due relatively better), and a diversity of geographic locations. I would also provide free auto repairs as an incentive for study participants to report all of their problems accurately. I think that for about fifty million that I could settle this question definitively in less than five years.

[beltbuckle]

I(and I change the oil every 50,000 miles whether it needs it or not!)

I hope that was a typo... It probably would need an oil change every 50,000 miles.

[Roland Deschain]

I hope that was a typo... It probably would need an oil change every 50,000 miles.

That was no typo. I have changed the oil no more than every 50,000 miles. I actually decided to do this after listening to an episode of Car Talk where "the brothers" joked about doing an experiment where they never changed the oil on an old clunker (I'm not sure if they were kidding). I do however, add a quart of oil about every 1,200 hundred miles. Furthermore, I add a quart of Duralube every 20,000 or so miles (not sure what if any effect that has). However, it's hard to argue with 306,000+ plus miles on the odometer (and and engine which seems to have as much power as when I bought the car used from Budget Rent a Car).

I have progressed to using premium gas because the car was knocking after the ignition was turned off. However, that was several years ago and it hasn't gotten any worse.

By the way "when a timing belt breaks is it usually worse with a Honda than with a Toyota?" I had one break on a 1984 EXP (the worst car I have ever owned without a doubt) and it didn't cause any damage. However, when I was calling about Honda's in the Trader, I was amazed at how many had engine damage from a busted timing chain. Maybe it was just coincidence, but none of the Toyota's that I called about had similiar problems. This observation led me to ponder whether or not Honda's might be more reliable than Toyota's when they are properly maintained, but less so when the vehicles are neglected.

[Cisco]

I used to have a boss that twice in his life bought new cars and drove them to their deaths because he never changed the oil.

The first time was in the 1980s - a Camaro - and it went about 70,000 miles IIRC. I was working for him the second time it happened. Dodge Dakota, about a 1996 or 1997, real nice truck. I can't remember exactly how many miles that one went, but I think it was less than the Camaro.

Apart from that, he was a pretty smart guy, and one of the best bosses I ever had.

[leroy_the_mule]

A chevrolet Prizm might be in your budget Roland Deschain and its built similiar to a Corolla.

A Geo Prizm and Chevy Nova are also in the Toyota Corolla family--basically the same car. We drove an 84 Nova over 200,000 miles, and it just did everything we wanted. We bought it used for $700, traded it in for $700 on a used Honda Civic--which we like a teeny bit more than the Nova.

[phall0106]

I had a 1984 Toyota Camry--boy, do I miss that car--that had problems with the timing belt. Broke at 40,000 miles like clockwork, but never damaged the engine. When the belt broke (once as a result of the oil pump breaking), the car simply died. From what I understand, it's pretty difficult to damage an engine that's not running.

Timing belt aside, I'd buy another Toyota in a heartbeat.

[Small Clanger]

What do the locals drive?
Toyotas. All of them. Make of this what you will. You really ough to see The truck that would not die. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/prog28/toyota.shtml) From BBCs Top Gear. Incredible.

[gigi]

If those dipshits had replaced the timing chain at 90k miles like they were supposed to, they wouldn't have engine damage. I've been very happy with my Honda Accord and my wife has one too but I'm not qualified to say that it's the most reliable.
At my Honda service place there's a sign saying the timing belt should be changed at 90K (and they do the other belts while they're in there). I was getting my 90K service done a little early and asked about this and they told me that the belts will be done at 105K. I have a 98 Civic and do all the scheduled checkups; will 105K be OK for this?

I had to replace my muffler and that middle pipe relatively soon, and the brakes were done at 60K. Otherwise he's doing fine, but again he's only at about 91K.

[Roland Deschain]

Yea, I took my Corolla into the dealer for a 100K "belt service" a couple of years ago. I left when they told me that the BASIC price was going to be about $900.00 ! That's as much as I've spent on my Corolla in maintenance in over 300K miles and ten years of ownership! The reason that I drive an old, car is to save money after all.



At my Honda service place there's a sign saying the timing belt should be changed at 90K (and they do the other belts while they're in there). I was getting my 90K service done a little early and asked about this and they told me that the belts will be done at 105K. I have a 98 Civic and do all the scheduled checkups; will 105K be OK for this?

I had to replace my muffler and that middle pipe relatively soon, and the brakes were done at 60K. Otherwise he's doing fine, but again he's only at about 91K.