Nice. I know, I don't want to take any chances with my autotragic. But the service intervals are the same for auto and manual.

And your car has what like...30K miles now? You need to drive that thing more. I think we are driving to the east coast in a week and a half. Let the Accord stretch her legs a bit.

 

I dont have too many complaints with my 96 Accord, its been rediculously reliable and still is, 8 years old and almost 100k miles I'd still trust it on a cross country trip. Ive never had any problems outside of regular maintenance items and when I drive it, I always feel very confident that it will not break down (a feeling Ive never felt in any other car) No, the 5th gen Accords arent the best riding Accords (the 98+ ride and drive MUCH better) but it is comfortable, smooth on the highway and the engine does not sound strung out at highway speeds when Im traveling (this car has been accross the country 4 times already) and it is showing no signs of aging. I didnt buy it brand new, but with very low miles (35k) and I have more than gotten my moneys worth. Cant wait for it to turn 100k miles young. Long live the F22

 

Don't forget your 150K mile warranty extension (emissions).

 

Turned 53k miles yesterday

Since I put 39k miles on my Accord the first 8 months (purchased new) that I had the car it now deserves a pampered life of low milage years.

What's the deal with the East Coast treck?

 

No I never complaint about the high cost of service; I spent about $1300 as a whole for 90k service for the Honda (my mechanic charges 1/2 of dealer rate). I was hoping that after the investment the car will at least drive "like new" but it doesn't; that's why I am actually pissed about the enginerring. But like I said, it is pretty much the worst thing I have owned for a long time;and it is not by choice. That's why I really have a fit about it.

I don't mind paying money, but I want to have something nice to drive. I also don't mind paying for service for the car to extend its life. But through my experience, there isn't a need for the Honda.

 

I have a 95 accord ex coupe with almost 200,000 miles on it. Since the day I drive it off the new car lot it has given me no problems at all. I did not have any of the recomended service done at the honda dealer to me its a ripoff and I don't like when someone is ripping me off. Every 100,000 I get my ass screwed on the timing belt/waterpump steal a thon, and ever 3 years I get held up at the dealer ship b/c they choose to make the front rotors untouchable for anyone to do with out a press. They usually hold me up for around 600 bucks for new rotors then. Other than that my car runs like its brand new, handles like a dream, no noises

 

thats how a honda is supposed to run. I"m sure you changed oil every 3k miles as well.

Maintaining a car isnt that hard, you just gotta use common sense and dont take it to a dealer unless you need timing belt or pressed on rotors(i know all about that, i dont own my 96 anymore...my rotors were warped but it got totalled so i didnt have to change them....i'm sure glad i never changed them before the accident).

My car i'm SURE would have ran to 300+k miles because it was in superb condition, but it had only 100k miles on it when it was totalled. Oh well!

This is my first post in this thread and i agree with all the people that say that the service is a somewhat of a ripoff. There are a few preventive maintenance things i woudl pay somene to do and they are as follows.

1. Change brake fluid on an ABS system
2. Change timing belt
3. Change pressed on rotors(not really a preventive maintenance thing..but its something that inevitible you will need to do in the life of your car)
4. Adjust valve timing and clearance

Most of those i wouldnt do cuz i dont have that much experience in those areas. Tahts just my personal list..everyone elses is different. All other parts of the car are open game for me.

Dave

 

$550 is too much for a 60K service period.

I read the list of what they do, and mostof it is just inspectons.

The only replacements are air filter, spark plugs and trany fluid!!
(oh, I forgot the brake flush)
The air filter you can do yourself period

The spark plug change shouldn't be too expensive.

The brake flush is probably unnecessary.

For my 2000 Prelude, I got the manual trans fluid changed at 30K, got the coolant changed at 45K and changed the air filter and PCV valve at 30K intervals. Other than that it's just been oil and oil filter changes.

I didn't have the brakes flushed at 60K and that was fine, had to replace the pads and rotors at 75K anyway, and they flushed the brakes at that time.

A Honda should be a reliable car and not cost you a fortune in maintenance (at least before 100K anyway).

 

I was hoping that after the investment the car will at least drive "like new">>>>

It will never drive like it did the day it rolled off the assembly line. All of the suspension and drivetrain components have aged 7-8 years, its an old car. Unless you want to completely replace the entire suspension, wheel bearings, drive shafts, struts, shocks, engine bearings and internals, etc, etc.. the car will not drive like it did when it was brand new. Your car also isnt as smooth or quiet as it was when it was brand new, my car isnt even as solid as it was at 35k miles. However, of all the cars I have owned, the Honda runs, looks and drives the 'newest' at its age and mileage. Unlike the others, the Honda feels like it can easily go another 100,000 miles and 8 years... whereas the other cars were feeling very old and tired. For being as old as it is and having the mileage it does, my Accord is running pretty new, but thats in relative terms.

but it doesn't; that's why I am actually pissed about the enginerring>>>

New timing belts isnt going to make your car magically run like a nrand new machine off the dealer lot. It made my engine a bit smoother and a little more responsive.. but that was about it. Changing the belts is a preventive maintenance, its not done in hopes of having a brand new engine when its done. Changing oil does absolutely nothing in terms of engine performance, yet you still do it every 3k miles as a preventive maintenance to keep the internals lubricated thus reducing engine wear, and increasing engine life.

But like I said, it is pretty much the worst thing I have owned>>>

No, the Cavalier was the worst thing youve owned, glad to hear your memories of that car are distant. The Accord is the 'worst' car youve owned because you are used to much more expensive
and sophisticated cars. I am certain the owner of a Maybach would think your Lexus was the biggest piece of sh!+ he had ever ridden in and woul turn his nose up to the thought of a lowly Volvo. Start comparing the Honda Accord to cars that were intended to compete with it, and you will see the Accord rise above all others. For its price and class, it last far longer and is far more dependable than comparable cars. And with the latest generation of the Accord, its now more luxurious and had quality and features that were previously only offered in high-end luxury cars. To the owner of a Lexus GS330, the new Accord is not such a brutal step down anymore. We've already been around and around on this, and I dont choose to get back into the ring. Back to the 5th gen, a well built, well engineered car...with the newest and last model year of that generation now approaching 7 years old, while hiding their age better than most other comparable cars out there.

for a long time;and it is not by choice. That's why I really have a fit about it>>

I bought my Accord because I wanted the Accord, not just on the basis of Hondas reputation, but because I like the car in general, it being miraculously reliabile was an added bonus.

I don't mind paying money, but I want to have something nice to drive>>>>

All of us agree that the Accord is a very pleasant car to drive... you are the only one disagreeing, and you arent the only one who has owned more expensive, high-end luxury cars. The difference with me is, I can understand that my Accord is 8 years old with 100,000 miles on it... I dont expect it to perform like a brand new car, and I am very grateful that it runs and looks as good as it does despite its age. If it were a Lexus LS430, then yes, I'd be dissapointed... but lets get real here.

But through my experience, there isn't a need for the Honda>>

Have you driven any of Hondas more elaborate products (Acura)?
The TL, CL, NSX, MDX, RL, etc. Toyota without a doubt, creates better works of art, but Toyota is a MUCH larger auto manufacturer (the 3rd largest in the world behind GM and Ford) but Hondas more than hold their own, and both Honda and Toyota are rated similar in terms of overall reliability and quality...much the reason why Honda and Toyota are almost always together in a single sentence.

 

I agree with most of what you said...

Part of my struggle had been that people telling me that their car drives like a brand new car after 100k. I had 2 new cars in the past 3 years, I would think I know how a new car drives... Yet my Accord is not at 100k and drives relatively poor. With the stacks of service record my wife present to me, I know the car was taken cared. If it is one person telling me that their car runs like new, I would prob not have believed him, however 1/2 of this forum swears that their car drives new after so many years and so many miles... I even went to carmax to test drive 3 other Accords of similar specs and came down with a conclusion that those people have lowered expectation.

Initially I ordered an A4 3.0 fully loaded with things that's not even on today's car such as rear seat warmer and sun shade for rear seats...etc After a long story, I ended up canceling the order. I have test drove TL and RL before I bought my Lexus. I have looked at 2 TL prior to giving up. I looked at TL and TL-S, both are pretty good, however they both have assembling quality problems. During the test drive, we have also come to the conclusion that my wife doesn't need the type S. Material selection should also be a little more careful. Real wood or better quality fake wood should also be used. For that price range, I don't blame Acura for being that way; but I was shopping for a car for my wife, that's why I am not giving in. Then I tested the RL; again, it is a pretty nice car. The problem with RL is that you can see that RL is build solid with very proven technology (switch gears reminding me of my 96 Accord). In our opinion, RL is also a little more expensive for what it is... We went to Lexu and the GS clicked. Since we were not going for the type S, we looked at the 6 cyl model of GS. We didn't like it initially, cause the suspension was too soft. Then the sales brought out another car with the sports package, and that's the one we ended up with...

Unlike most people, I have no brand loyalty; I swing from manufacture to manufacture. So far I still haven't found one that I am confortable with. Even with the Lexus, I start to find manufacturing defects. So far there are 2 from the inside and 1 on the outside, but that's after careful inspection for almost 1 year of ownership.

Conclusion is that I am putting up with my Accord for now; it is not bad enough for me to not want to drive it. For the operating cost and for the investment I have put in, I am not willing to let it go yet. As for the Lexus, unless if they have a good promotion (ie. putting manual trans into the new GS), it is not likely that I will go back; they also need to make their cars a little more carefully. As for Acura, they need to make their cars more special and more luxurious; with the new TL, they seem to be going down the right path. Rear drive will also be welcome.