In another thread about reliable cars, people kept mentioning Hondas, so i decided to check their NADA & blue book price. A honda has a price roughly equal to that of a miata or ford F-150 with a comparable year or mileage. I always thought Honda cars were economy cars (like hyundais or neons). Were they ever, or am i just remembering things wrong?
Were and still are. There are few cars cheaper than a low end Honda Civic and most of those you don’t want to buy.
[old timer mode]
Way back when, in the 70s, Hondas were really cheapola cars. Inexpensive and less than good quality. They have improved quality somewhat (but not as much as most people think). So prices have gone up a notch, but still a deal when you factor in how long you can run it before it rusts out.
[/old timer mode]
Another “were and still are”.
Assuming the grand tradition of motorcycles and all other things mechanical will be ignored in this thread, Honda automobiles have always been a very good value. Sure, they were a little rough in the early days, but they were very economical (cheap). Today, you would be hard pressed to find a better car for the money. In your example, the Mazda and Ford are no comparison against the Honda. The Honda is a better automobile and will be running years after the Ford has rusted to a pile of red dust. The Mazda is a cool car, but kinda “niche” and not very realistic for many folks who need more than a 2 seater sports car.
I have always said, that whatever Honda decides to build, it will be the best one of whatever it is, be it toilet plungers or electric chairs, generators or motorcycles.
(gatopescado has been associated with Honda motorcycle and power products dealers for longer than he cares to admit.)
Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.
I remember when you could get a Honda Civic in any color you wanted, so long as it was silver.
They were small, and they were cheap, kind of like a successor to the original VW Beetle, only without the hippie ambience.
Hondas have gotten better, and the sticker prices have gone up accordingly, but they last forever.
My wife and I gave our 1986 Accord to the Salvation Army two weeks ago. It had 253,000 miles on it. On its first and only engine. We bought it used in 1990 with ~56K miles on it. Paid $7000 for it, and it was the best $7000 we ever spent. It was quite dependable for about 9 years, then we got another 2 years of decent second-car-hood out of it, before it got to the point where everything was about to go at once.
We replaced it with a 2000 Accord. 
Hmm. A new civic is only 14k according to kbb. Thats not a bad price, i was basing my opinion on the cost of a 1999 civic with 60000 miles on it, which is the same price as a 1999 F-150 or Taurus with 60000 miles on it ($9k). The cost of a new civic is lower than a new F-150, but it doesn’t depreciate nearly as fast. I should buy a new honda next time i buy something.
Plus, the Honda with 60K miles on it will not have significantly higher running costs when compared to a new one. The 60K miles Ford might…
I’m dating myself here, but… back in 1972, the Honda Civic was TINY, and cost a mere $1475.00!
At that time, Honda was known almost exclusively as a motorcycle manufacturer, and the Civic looked like two motorcycles, side by side, with a roof and chassis slapped on top. At that time, the only people buying them were college kids who just wanted something cheap and semi-functional to knock around town in until they graduated.
Hondas are comparable in price NEW to most other economy cars (unless you start talking Metros, HYundai Accent, etc, which are smaller than anything Honda makes). They cost more used because they last longer. A Honda with 60,000 miles on it will generally have more life left in it than say, a Ford Escort with similar mileage.
So, Civics are still economy cars, but they have great resale value for economy cars.
Also, another factor in making an economy car is operating cost. The F-150 is going to cost much more to operate, despite similar purchase prices for a used vehicle.
The first early '70s Hondas in Texas, as astorian mentions made VW Beetles look huge. Being between two 18-wheelers on a freeway in one was downright scary.
I bought a new 1978 Honda Accord, way back when. It had the CVCC engine and, for the first 20-25K miles, it was a decent car. After that, it became maybe the worst POS I ever owned.
Laugh if you will, but I fully intend to replace my 2001 F-150 with an Element when my lease ends. Mmmm, Element. Now if they’d only name their color schemes after actual elements.
I just completed all the comparison shoping for the 2003 compact cars. After driving several and looking at just about everything else Mrs. Jim and I selected a Honda Civic LX. It felt more solid, had better pick up and more usable room than anything else. Plus with the LX package we get a sunroof and power everything. I know the Hyndia’s and Kia’s are cheeper, but they feel it. And just from a personal stand point, I don’t trust a car company that wasn’t in business when I graduated college.
After a month of driving I can boast 42 mpg on the freeway! We’re buying it and for just $100 more a month than the lease cost for the same amount of time I’m happy. I’m going to drive it until the wheels fall off.
Another old timer here. I remember when the Civic was a frighteningly small, cheap car. I also clearly remember seeing aone of those Civics that had been t-boned in an accident and literally half the car was smashed in. Scared me away from small cars for years.
It wasn’t until the Accord came out (IIRC it was the late 1970s) that Honda started to move away from the “cheap” image.
Up until 1999, my dad kept a 1984 Honda Accord around in our side yard. It was my sister’s when she was first driving (they bought it for her in '92), and mine when I first learned (in ‘99), and in between it was just the extra car for when one of my parents’ was in the shop. It had a bajillion or so miles on it, and by the time it was mine it was no longer silver, but instead a patchy color with a lot of grey primer showing through. But it still ran, and ran well. Got fifteen thousand miles to the gallon. And, BEGIN NON-EXAGGERATING STATEMENT my father once took me on a backroad in it and opened 'er up, and we were going over 120 mph - the speedometer was pegged END NON-EXAGGERATING STATEMENT.
I would never dare go that fast in any car off a speedway, myself - there’s a time and place for racing and it ain’t in a decades-old Honda on a country road, IMO - but the fact that it was capable of doing so at the age of 15 rather impressed me.
I used to always say that I would never be caught dead driving a Honda. But, I was looking into buying an “economy” car as a means of re-building my credit, and they’re a bit out on my range. So now, my sorry ass is looking at a Ford Focus.
Poor me.
[gratuitous plug]
Hondas will run forever, and these days if you have the desire to add some bells and whistles, there’s just as much aftermarket support for them as there is for Ford and Chevy.
Of course, you’ll have to deal with everyone thinking your a ‘ricer’, but still…
[/gratuitous plug]
The other good thing about Hondas… if you are a do-it-yourself kind of guy, there are about 4.3 billion of them sitting in pick-n-pull places, if you have the desire to tinker.
Honda parts are extremely expensive. Even in the case of old Hondas, very little can be bought aftermarket; most major parts are dealer-exclusive.
My sister owns an '89 Accord that has had a huge appetite for dealer-exclusive parts over the past 2 years. Her old Delta 88 rarely needed anything, but the car’s age had her spooked and people who don’t know what they’re talking about told her she didn’t want to replace it with “American junk”.
BTW, this Honda has less than 100,000 miles and doesn’t outwardly look like a clunker.
zenith- You’re sister got an oddball. Most of the people I know drive Hondas and Accords, and those that haven’t modified them have gotten exceedingly reliable transportation. 100K miles is just starting to put some wear in them… if you are getting the oil changed regularly, and the other odds and ends taken care of (plugs, etc) when recommended, there’s no reason that a Honda can’t cover 300K with little problem.
And when I was refering to aftermarket parts, I was meaning performance parts. Sorry for the confusion. I can’t speak as to the cost of OEM parts, as most of my friends have yet to have to replace anything beyond filters, plugs and the occasional belt.
I have a 1996 Civic CX hatchback. Currently, at 121,000 miles, it runs more beautifully than any other vehicle anyone in my family has owned (well, except for a Plymouth Voyager that died after 273,000 miles :eek: ).
Compare this to my 1995 Plymouth Neon, which at the time, could have been considered an “economy car”. At 70,000 miles, I had to replace a rear wheel bearing, the driver’s side steering knuckle, and to this day, I think a CV joint needed replacing. At 80k, it was faltering at normal cruising speeds, and broke down occasionally. We simply assumed it was vapor lock. Finally, at 90k, the POS totally crapped out on me, breaking down four times on a single trip from Cleveland to Pittsburgh. We still couldn’t figure out what was wrong with it, so I traded it in for my Civic, and I will never look back.
Tristan, you’re spot on with the “ricer” stuff, though. I haven’t done a thing to my car (even if I did, it’d be a sleeper), and people give me the “rice-b0i” attitude. It’s totally worth it, though.
caveman, my wife wants an Element. Hell, I’d like one too, it reminds me of my '85 Toyota Van, in the way that people say they’re ugly. That van was so fun to drive (if the wind wasn’t too high), and I imagine the Element would be, too.
irkenDoom: bwa-ha-ha…my in-laws drow a red van of exactly that type (which I had suffered through many roadtrips in) up until last year, when they traded it in on a Prius.