Cheap, reliable used Civic? Finding cheap/reliable Civic to last 3 years?

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:
>
>
> >Just about exactly a year ago, I was looking for the exact same thing
> >you are. I bought a 92 Civic EX loaded with 126k for $2600. but knew
> >there were some repairs to make. Engine, trans, AC, and body were all
> >decent, but I spent over $1k in the past year on suspension, brakes,
> >tires, etc. You usually get what you pay for.
>
> Which in your case is not too bad. A new Civic would have cost you
> $1000 in interest alone. Depreciation and higher insurance would be at
> least $2000 more. Total out of pocket expenses might have been $4,600
> plus insurance plus your down payment. And, except for the down
> payment, you can pretty well count on getting the same thing next
> year. About the time you get it paid off (or maybe before), you can
> expect to buy... brakes and tires.
>
> Your used Civic cost less than $100 in interest (money you could have
> earned on the cash I assume you paid for the car.) You saved on
> insurance and your car may be now worth more than you paid for it
> because it has new tires and brakes. Your out of pocket expenses were
> $1100 plus (lower) insurance and your initial $2600. Next year you
> could easily get away for a couple hundred dollars or it could cost
> you a couple thousand. It can't get close to that $4,600 you would
> have paid if you had bought new. Even if the car burns to the ground
> tomorrow, it won't have cost you as much as a new car would have.
>
> Both cars incur fuel and maintenance expenses which are about the same
> over the long haul. So will repairs if you keep the new car long
> enough. One will give you the joys of new car ownership. The other
> is likely to be vexing at times but can still be a joy to own. If you
> drive both cars into the ground, cost, joy and vexation will tend to
> equalize.
>
> Some people are so prissy or status conscious or whatever that they
> have to buy a new car every two or three years. I don't know if you
> get what you pay for, but I do know you pay a lot for that.

True. Lots of sound thoughts there Gordon. Owning a car is gonna cost
ya whether it's in payments, interest, depreciation, or repairs. Not to
mention insurance. One way or another, you're gonna pay. I haven't been
blessed (?) with the joy of new car ownership for about 20 years, and
lately I'm feeling good driving an oldy-but-goody. There's some kind of
feeling about pulling into my work parking lot with my shiny '92 (yep-
paid cash), and all the others with their leased Benz suv's. Suckers.

I guess if I sold the house, wife, and kids, I could afford to blow a
lot on a status symbol. Priorities, I guess.

Depending on condition and options, I'd guess 2-3k from a smart buyer.

I'd guess more than that. A 29K miles car is virtually new except it
sure would be time to replace all the hoses if not aready done.

JT




wrote:
>
> Depending on condition and options, I'd guess 2-3k from a smart buyer.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> I'd guess more than that. A 29K miles car is virtually new except it
> sure would be time to replace all the hoses if not aready done.

surprisingly (or not!), japanese hoses can last a long, long time. ive
had a couple vehicles that were 15+ years old, with the original hoses.
still supple, and not rotting/bulging from the inside either due to
regular coolant changes.

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 08:37:06 -0700, SoCalMike
> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> I expect to have a 16 year old Civic with 29K for sale soon. It is my
>> mother's car and she is giving up driving. The odometer has not been
>> replaced or tampered, etc.
>>
>> Any idea what this might be worth?
>
>a 1990? what body style and trim level? garaged? paint still shiny, etc?
>
>if it happpened to be an Si hatch, id give ya $5000 for it

No such luck. It is a hatchback, outside all its life. I am going to
pick it up next weekend to give it a good inspection but I think the
body is in pretty good shape considering the age.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>
> > A 29K miles car is virtually new except it
> > sure would be time to replace all the hoses if not aready done.
>
> A couple of years ago, my aunt stopped driving. She had an 87 Civic DX
> w/auto and air and a radio, and it had--no fooling--8000 miles on the
> clock.
>
> My sister in law got it for $2000 or $2500 or something. It now has 14K
> on the clock.
>
> The muffler had rotted out, and I told her to get new timing belt and
> drive belts and hoses, and I suggested tires as well. Not sure what all
> she ended up doing with it, but I think she spent another $600 to $1000
> in all.
>
> My wife wants us to buy my mother's car. I was mistaken; it's 54,871
> miles.
>
> (sigh) I don't know...



Two years ago, I bought to Honda Civics (1982 and 1983) both of which
had just over 100K for $200. The 1982 was wrecked in the front but
still had a functioning drive line and the '83 had the head off (rebuilt
but never installed) but the body was virtually perfect and was the FE
model. I test ran the engine (which started right up with a small
portable gas tank hooked to the carb and it sounded great. I pulled the
engine/tranny out of the '82 and stripped it down to a bare block. The
clutch/pressure plate were like new so I left that alone.

Pulled the '83 engine/tranny then married the good '82 block with the
'83 tranny and retained all of the '83 accessories. It is nearing
completion and I look to actually have it running within the next
months. Also, I installed a new fuel tank/pump/filters. Before I
installed the engine, I changed out the timing belt and waterpump.

I figure that I'll have about $800 total in this car when it's ready for
the road and judging from what these units bring on eBay, I can't really
go wrong. If it gives me any grief, to market it will go and I'll just
rely on my old trusty (and simple) 1955 Studebaker President.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> SoCalMike wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> I'd guess more than that. A 29K miles car is virtually new except it
>>> sure would be time to replace all the hoses if not aready done.
>> surprisingly (or not!), japanese hoses can last a long, long time. ive
>> had a couple vehicles that were 15+ years old, with the original hoses.
>> still supple, and not rotting/bulging from the inside either due to
>> regular coolant changes.
>
>
> See my other post this date. In it I mention a 1983 Civic FE that had
> its head off due to a blown head gasket. I will agree that OEM hoses
> are pretty good but it's not worth the risk to be penny-wise but dollar
> foolish when considering the consequences of any coolant failure.
>
> Every coolant hose has been replaced regarding my FE project.
>
> JT

sure- all depends on climate and what aftermarket manufacturer you go
with. id be more likely to catch a hose leaking than a belt breaking,
especially a timing belt. the TB is crucial, but hoses can be important too.

SoCalMike wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> > SoCalMike wrote:
> >> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>> I'd guess more than that. A 29K miles car is virtually new except it
> >>> sure would be time to replace all the hoses if not aready done.
> >> surprisingly (or not!), japanese hoses can last a long, long time. ive
> >> had a couple vehicles that were 15+ years old, with the original hoses.
> >> still supple, and not rotting/bulging from the inside either due to
> >> regular coolant changes.
> >
> >
> > See my other post this date. In it I mention a 1983 Civic FE that had
> > its head off due to a blown head gasket. I will agree that OEM hoses
> > are pretty good but it's not worth the risk to be penny-wise but dollar
> > foolish when considering the consequences of any coolant failure.
> >
> > Every coolant hose has been replaced regarding my FE project.
> >
> > JT
>
> sure- all depends on climate and what aftermarket manufacturer you go
> with. id be more likely to catch a hose leaking than a belt breaking,
> especially a timing belt. the TB is crucial, but hoses can be important too.



Most premature ending of Honda(s) are maintenance related. Failure to
replace timing belts along with a failure to monitor the temperature
gauge. Both can ruin your day in a hurry...

JT

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2006 09:48:34 -0700, wrote:
>
> Personally, I would pick the new Civic Si over the RSX

So would I except for the Honda-sponsored lease deal.
>
> I think he could very easily find a car in the $3 - 5K range that
> would serve him well for three years.

No car in the $3-5K range will have the safety features of a new RSX;
and drivers with the least experience are better served by safer cars.
Obviously, the RSX will not require any costly repairs whereas any
cheap used car might.

My local CarMax dealership is now selling new Nissan Sentras for under
$11,800. The Sentra may not be exciting but it should be reliable for 3
years.