Admittedly, the term “game changer” is easily overused and subject to debate in its application. But the all-new Honda Accord made a huge impact on the US market; it’s difficult to overstate just how much so. Let’s boil it down to two key lasting impacts: it essentially killed VW’s attempt to reclaim its long dominance of the US market with its FWD Rabbit (Golf 1). And it set the template for reliable, economical, well trimmed, comfortable, smooth-running FWD cars that could compete for dominance in the heart of the US market. The Accord soon became a perennial favorite, and this is where it all started.
This review slightly annoys me, because R&T constantly compares it to the VW Scirocco, which happened to share a stylistic resemblance with the Accord hatchback. It should be the Rabbit, as the Scirocco was considerably smaller and set up for maximum sportiness. Meanwhile, the travails of R&T’s long-term test of their ’75 Rabbit showed how glaringly lacking in full development that car was. VW rushed it to market, and cheaped out on the fine details and especially the quality of its many components in a drive to reduce cost. The dollar’s loss of value was really crimping VW, and here comes Honda with everything that the Rabbit wasn’t.
It’s important to note that the Accord was not at all overtly sporty, despite the similarity to the sport Scirocco. It was designed to appeal to the heart of the American market, or someone considering downsizing from an Olds Cutlass or such. It came standard with all sorts of amenities and clever touches that were optional on most cars. Honda proved that making these little doodads standard did little in raising the price of the car to build overall.
Performance from the 69hp CVCC 1.6 L four was only mid-pack, but the engine ran very smoothly up to its 6000rpm redline, and suffered much less from the driveability issues that severely plagued the early Rabbit and so many other cars of the time.
Technically, the Accord was really just an enlarged Civic, which had already became the darling of the low end of the US market, and established itself to be unusually reliable, roomy, efficient and comfortable for such a tiny car. The Accord took the formula one step up, and made it the perfect car for early Civic owners to trade up to as well as huge conquest sales from the market at large. The only real problem was that Honda was constantly production constrained, and struggled for years to expand its factories to meet the demand, including the first Japanese transplant factory in the Marysville, US, where Accords are still rolling off the lines. Needless to say, meeting demand is not a problem anymore, as the current Accord is struggling a bit in the current truck-oriented market.
In fairness to R&T, the Accord was kind of a new concept when it first appeared. European cars were aimed at the “foreign car buyer”. Sure, they might pick up an occasional disgruntled Dodge or Pontiac customer, but they were not designed to appeal to the guy who typically bought American.
Then “normal” Japanese mainstream cars were boxy sedans. The Accord, being a really attractive 2 door with high trim and equipment levels looked a lot more like a “sporty coupe” than it did a mainstream kind of car. We can all see now how brilliantly the Accord seduced the middle American market, but I am not sure that this target was really all that obvious when they first showed up in 1976.
By late 1976, a VW Scirocco’s base MSRP was at $4,990. That was a lot of money—at lot higher than Accord’s $3,995 (which admittedly was probably only paid by the first few customers, as dealers added ‘rustproofing’ or charged more.
The Scirocco was looker–but had a considerably less friendly seat than the Accord, was also a good-looking car (if not as good).
In 1976, I think one could get a Corolla SR5 liftback– 5-speed. But with RWD, it wasn’t as space efficient, and it probably was not as ‘fun to drive’ as the Accord.
So while the boxy Rabbit may not have looked the part, that was really the Accord’s closest competitor. And if one opted for disc brakes, and carpet, well, it was priced about the same as the Accord (the base Rabbit was $3499, with drum and rubber floors….)
So I agree with Paul. I share his bemusement that R&T made the Accord to be a sporty coupe–it was sporty in the context of a Buick Regal or Ford Torino or even a Pinto or Vega, but not sportier than a Corolla SR5, or Celica, Capri, or to name a few (and all of those could be had for less than a Scirrocco)
…and yet Detroit slept. Volumes have been written on the subject, yet I still cannot understand how and why the (then) Big Three chose to ignore glaringly obvious competitive threats like this car. Especially notable is the content level included in the Accord’s base price while Detroit nickeled and dimed consumers for gauges, clocks, FM radio, wheel covers other than dog dish hubcaps, etc.
Detroit didn’t ignore this car. They did a poor job of responding to it.
The GM X cars were exactly what the market wanted, but fell down on execution. They’d successfully downsized the B/C cars and the A cars. But they didn’t get the X cars right, sold trainloads of them, and (like Chrysler in 57) every car made an enemy instead of a friend. The GM J cars were comparable to the Accord in concept, but inferior in execution. The result gutted Chevrolet, and those buyers didn’t come back to GM.
However attractive the Accord is today in retrospect, no one else from Japan did a better job of responding to it than the US brands did. Honda was the only popular and well liked mainstream FWD car from Japan til the early 80s. There were various weird FWD cars like the first Tercel from other makers, but they only sold because people wanted Japanese economy cars instead of American cars. (Subaru was weird.) Toyota didn’t have a no excuses FWD car like the Accord or Civic in the US til the 83 Corolla. Lots of small FWD cars from Europe had made no impact in the US. It would require a crystal ball to see that this was the one, and that Honda would keep guessing right and executing well.
People bought Hondas *despite* their lack of factory options, because the Honda was much, much nicer (although it rusted as quickly as any car on the road) than a comparably sized and stickered American car. An Accord could be as satisfying in its way as a larger, more expensive American car like a Cutlass.
Honda made a virtue of necessity for shipping cars long distances, and Honda also eliminated a layer of manufacturing complication. The trend to minimal freestanding options has everything to do with efficient manufacturing and nothing to do with buyer preference. There is a tiny advantage in resale value to grouping option packages into trim level names, because freestanding options tend to have less resale value than trim levels.
I remember an acquaintance in the early 80s buying an Accord sedan. He said Honda sure ‘made it simple’, like their advertising said: There were basically no choices but color and transmission.
GM’s pants-on-fire response to the second gas crisis is sort of a meta-Deadly Sin that led to so many others, from rushing the FWD Xs to market to overinvestment in robots and consequent overambitious cost-cutting from the cars themselves to their too-small mid ’80s luxocars.
I bought the wife an Accord in ’79. They were insanely hard to get, and it took patience. We didn’t know the color it would be until it actually arrived- we were on a waiting list for a 5-spd, and the wife was hoping for Blue. We got Silver, which is still better than Gold.
Again, I don’t understand how slow Detroit was to respond to this car. There was another car in ’76 that appeared at roughly the same time as the Accord, but was just as good a value proposition. The Toyota Corolla SR-5 liftback.
Actually,Amemerican car companies were ahead of the Accord with the Vega,Pinto and to a lesser extent Gremlin. it’s just that they really fumbled the ball in quality and reliability and left that market open to cars like this Accord and Toyota etc…
Oh, Eddie . . . .
I didnt say they were anywhere near as good as the Accord…………..just had the right idea………no?
If by “the right idea” you mean small size, then I see your point. But the Accord was not really about small size. Jeez, every Fiat and Golf and Saab and Renault and Austin of the early 70s were small too and the Accord kicked most of them out of relevance. The American efforts were impractically cramped coupes, mechanically crude, poorly finished, badly built, no better than average in durability (if we pull the Vega out of the calculation). The Europeans could beat the Americans on the general efficiency of their dimensions, and maybe on their engineering sophistication and road manners, but not on much else (and they were generally much less durable). The American efforts were notably cynical, built to be cheap cars for stupid kids who couldn’t afford better. Almost nobody who could afford better bought one.
The Accord was smooth, impeccably finished, highly trimmed, beautifully styled, had excellent road manners, had thoroughly impressive engineering and was durable as hell. And all for waaaaaay less money than anything else with those attributes was selling for. In other words, Honda built the best car it could and sold it reasonably. I don’t think this was the idea the American companies came up with at all.
Well JP, as the prior owner of a 1992 Accord and a 1991 civic sedan(one of my very favorite cars and favorite Honda) i agree with you 150%. they were excellent cars and a helluva lot of fun to drive not mention dead reliable.
I would respectfully disagree with Eddie. And I was (and want to be) “pro-American” car.
I think GM especially (given it’s greater talents) and Ford grudgingly offered up the Vega and Pinto to have a car to ‘compete’ and lure the buyers to their showrooms.
Once in the showroom, the salesman would show how, for just a little more, one could have a nice Nova, or for a little more, a much nicer Chevelle, and that not only was it more comfy, but it would be worth so much more at trade-in time.
And if the dealer sales force, couldn’t push the customer into a bigger car, well, the customer might still stay with Chevy or Ford.
The American companies did not want to cannibalize sales of their bigger, and much more profitable products.
The US automakers business model was to sell people the biggest car possible, because those cars were perceived as “better” and commanded higher prices. The cost of making a “full-size” car and an intermediate car was VERY close, and the cost of a compact not far behind. But the compact had to be sold for less money
The next thing was to sell the customer options. It is absurd to me that before the mid/late 70s, things like power steering and power brakes were OPTIONS on large American cars. 99% of them came with these extra cost features, and 98% had automatics. American cars without these are virtually undriveable.
Options weren’t as necessary on lighter compacts.
On subcompacts, they made the cars expensive compared to imports, and were harder to engineer.
If GM had just taken an Opel 1900, as has been alluded to here, and called it a Chevrolet Ascona, and built THAT in the US, the car would have sold better longer (remember, Vega enjoyed large sales). As what I consider a ‘good car”, better than a Corolla or Datsun B210, sales would stay high–and for every 3 sold, 2 of them would be coming from a larger Chevy. Ford experienced this with the original Mustang. IT was a hit–but GM’s sales were even better. Most Mustang sales were at the expense of other Ford products.
So basically, small decent cars changed the rules in a way that was going to cost Detroit money, one way or the other. Detroit tried prolong the gravy train–and I would say GM and Ford were successful to some extent in the short (pre 1979 run), but paid the price later.
Japan changed the rules, and the Accord changed the game.
No argument from me Tom! It’s a shame that American dealerships had to do and practice that kind of stupidity(come in for Vega and get talked in to a Nova). In the end , it literally bit them in the ass!
Which had no FM, no tach, and lots of unpainted and poorly finished interior bits. Rather than a cheap penalty box, this was an upscale car in the rest of the world and acquitted itself well against its competition.
They shared cylinder count and size. Full stop from there on. (Previous Vega owner here).
The Japanese in general and Toyota in particular introduced the idea of high-content standard equipment on a smaller car, traditionally less of a profit generator than a larger car or a full-size truck. The first Corona, around 1965, had standard equipment almost on par with a Buick Electra. A friend of mine bought a Mazda coupe in 1976 (Luce or Cosmo?), and it had power mirrors, which I had never seen on an American luxury car up to that time. Aside from the economies of scale (which kept costs at a minimum), it gave these small Japanese imports an aura of quality that made their sales take off. It was this idea that gave birth to the 1975.5 Cadillac Seville. The “Big 3” never caught onto this until it was too late. By that time, people fed up with poor quality on cars like the Vega and Pinto had abandoned Detroit for good.
If not for trucks and SUV’s, Big 3 would now be gone for good. Many of the same “fed up” buyers are flocking to trucks from Motown.
Honda’s #1 product is now the CR-V, almost twice as large as the first Civic. Again, who knew?
The thing I remember most about these cars was this: RUST, at least in the STL area, where winter salt was king, at least back in the day before the weather changed and snowfall is getting rare.
I never knew much about Japanese cars excerpt they ran really well, but some of the interior materials felt really cheap.
How far Japanese vehicles have come!
I agree 100%. My first brand-new car after graduating from college was a ’79 Accord. It was a great car — miles ahead of many of my friends’ new domestic cars in terms of performance and reliability. Being able to use regular leaded gas was a nice bonus, too.
I babied the Accord to the best of my ability — including putting it up on blocks, leaving it in a dry garage, and driving my beater car one winter to cut down on salt exposure. It was always kept washed and waxed. Despite my efforts, rust began to appear in less than 3 years — first on the rocker panels, then on the front fenders.
So, I decided to quit while I was ahead. I sprayed the rockers with spray-on undercoating to hide the most obvious rust, and sold the Accord at asking price to the first person who looked at it. The Celica that replaced it was still almost rust-free 10 years later.
I remember the rust as well, having owned a second hand 79 in the mid-eighties; the overall impression was a very good one, but rust became a serious issue when trying to pass the TÜV inspection in Germany – the inspectors demanded a lot of corrective work done before they would give it a “pass”, a new hood was one among many demands because of corrosion around the hinges. But otherwise a have fond memories since it was very dependable and would easily start even at -18ºC: that was not the case with its predecessor, a 1976 MB 200D that didn’t like cold weather…
Zackman, I also remember the rust… A girl I dated in college got a 1978 Accord for her HS graduation in 1981. The car already had it’s front fenders replaced due to rust (her dad had heard about the “secret warranty” and took advantage of it). During her ownership of the car, they were ready to be replaced again. The car suffered from other maladies; the carb had some issue that was expensive to repair and/or replace, so she just put up with it. At least for the first three years of it’s life the car was in a garage, however, that didn’t keep the interior plastics from sagging. I thought it was pretty sorry for a five year old car.
I’m far from saying every Accord of that generation suffered these issues, but I was around a lot of them and they all suffered from one or more of these issues. But, Detroit had set the bar pretty low and these guys stepped over it. They really didn’t develop the “bullet-proof” status until after the next generation of Accord came about. That car was a big step up and really made the Accord a legitimate contender for the US consumer.
Remember, up until the mid-1980’s, they did not have dealership coverage throughout the country. Until then, even if you could find one, you’d have to go a long way to get it serviced. That was a big turnoff for a lot of folks. VW had been around for close to 25-30 years by then and people were much more familiar with what they offered. Even in the town next to where I grew up, we had a VW, Renault and a Fiat dealership. If you went to Youngstown, there were even more (is that a Mini?) cars and brands available. Datsun and Toyota were “Japanese” cars to most people. Honda? They make motorcycles, right?
That said, my mother’s last two cars were Hondas. A 1989 Accord and a 1990-ish? Civic. She really liked them, but I think she liked the Accord better than the Civic, as I think it was lower and more accessible to her (at 5’0″). And if I’m honest, I think I liked that Accord, too.
Crap. My mother’s last car was a 1999-ish Civic. Maybe Y2K. (I looked it up on Google Images, it was a 2001) It was the Civic that had the MacPherson strut suspension. I only saw it sporadically and drove it a few times. That’s how big of an impression it left on me…
But now look how big the 2018 Accord/Civic are these days. Far from the “toss-able small cars” of olden days. The real ‘game changer’ was the 4 door, larger, Accords of the late 80s, into the 90’s. The compact ones are distant memories.
Most of the Boomers who demanded “good small cars” in 1976-82 now demand huge C/SUV’s for the room and “command seating position”.
How times have changed.
R&T called ’76 Accord “car for a changing world”. But most of the “redesigns” brought out a bigger model and always called “better” by the car mags. Like Detroit’s “longer, lower, wider”, but in different way.
Who knew?
It’s not so much the “command seating position” but ease of getting in and out. When your knees start giving out on you, you’ll understand.
I’d recently bought a ’77 Civic CVCC 5-speed when the Accord came out. My salesman contacted me and offered me what I’d paid for the CVCC (full sticker) in trade on an Accord. I test drove it, and while it was a very nice car indeed, it didn’t feel like the pocket rocket ideal Boston city car I had with that Civic, so I turned him down.
I agree that Honda Accord was not really a sporty car, but I recall seeing road tests in other magazines that compared it to the Volkswagen Scirocco, Toyota Celica and Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Sapporo.
Part of the problem was that the Accord was not initially available in any other body-styles other than the hatchback coupe and the 4-door sedan was still being developed and Honda’s own sporty Prelude would not come out for several years. In the early 80s the Honda Accord was put in comparison tests with the Mazda 626, Toyota Corona, Audi Fox and 4000 (80), Volkswagen Dasher and Quantum (Passat), and the GM X-cars.
Salt laden air and humidity killed Japanese cars fairly quickly where I lived, elsewhere they lasted as well as anything else and the Japanese habit of fitting everything standard that was on the option list on Australian and some British cars sold them, price had a bit to do with it the other thing was availability, Hondas were locally assembled in former BL plants and sold through their former network of dealers but came with few of the problems FWD BL cars came standard with, certainly game changers for regular shoppers at those dealerships.
I don’t know if anyone could have foreseen the juggernaut that the Honda Accord would become.
When this car debuted in 1976, that was the last year for the GM super size behemoths, although Ford would carry its enormous LTD until 1978. People had been buying the same basic Detroit car for decades; V8, body on frame, Power steering, brakes, air conditioning, three speed automatic, rear wheel drive. Those cars offered tremendous value for the money compared with most of what was available overseas. Despite some quality complaints, a full/midsize Detroiter would provide many years of solid, comfortable, relatively trouble free motoring with relatively little maintenance and repair. Understressed Iron Block V8s don’t overheat, automatic transmissions don’t often require complicated and expensive service, the guy at the gas station could adjust the carburetor and timing and tune it up every so often. They weren’t great quality compared with a modern car, but were great quality and very comfortable compared with a Rabbit or Fiat or Renault, were amazing. Try driving American distances in a 1976 Fiat compared with a 1976 Caprice and see. It was hard to imagine that people would give up all the space and comfort of a Caprice for a little toad shaped wheezy four cylinder car from a motorcycle manufacturer.
By 1976, GM was well into the X car development and Chrysler had the Omnirizon on the way. The Accord looked like just another little car, and less practical than what GM and Chrysler had on the drawing boards, as the Accord was smaller, less powerful, and only had two doors versus the available four on the GM and Chrysler products.
The real strength of the Accord was that everything else in a reasonable size was a miserable vinyl seated, cardboard door paneled, rubber matted crude penalty box. The Corolla, Datsun B210, Chevette, Pinto, and Gremlin were RWD and cramped inside and very cheaply and miserably furnished and uncomfortable. The Accord carried the trimmings of a much more expensive, plush car, and also was somewhat reasonably sized inside. It certainly drove better and was more like a real car than its competition.
I don’t even think Honda foresaw in 1976 the future explosive growth of the company.
In comparison to what the domestics were offering in the same size class, the Accord really was a game-changer. The domestic competition was crudely designed and poorly built. The Accord was nimble-handling, comfortable, well-designed and well-built. It had lot of thoughtful features and design touches. My Dad’s ’84 4-dr was a little jewel of a car that he loved, even though it was more than 10 yrs old when he bought it.
Vegas with their rust problems and agricultural engines, exploding Pintos and cut-down big car Gremlins really didn’t make the grade. Accord showed how a small car should be, and the domestics ignored it at their peril.
I can cite personal experience of Accord vs. Scirocco since I learned to drive in a 77 Accord and owned a 78 Scirocco. R&T actually did a comparison test with an Accord and a Scirocco in the 76-78 time frame and preferred the VW for driving, although the Accord had nicer details. I generally agree, the VW had sharper handling and the “Recaro” seats in my Scirocco were more comfortable but I didn’t have the coinbox and door pockets, nor did I have center dash vents and a fifth gear. On the plus side the VW had fuel injection which made for better driveability.
The 77 Accord was more fun to drive than the 84 Accord that replaced it. The early Accords had lower gearing and felt very eager.
I had a Scirocco and while it handled well, it was a complete piece of junk – always needing repairs – the fuel injection motors were replaced on an almost monthly basis by 1983 – because of a leak they could not find.
Replaced w/ a CR-X which ran w/o problem for 17 years and people fought to buy it from me.
I will never ever buy another VW or German car after that Scirocco.
I must have struck lucky, my 78 Scirocco’s only engine issue was snapped studs on the exhaust manifold to down pipe joint. I also bought it in 87 so it already had the modified fuel pump relay. Rust killed that car in 90 when the strut towers started to separate form the inner fenders.
Honda seemed to be well ahead of the pack with this one. The note at the end of the article about the “10 Best cars for a changing world”, although I know it’s a different magazine, is interesting given that the car has been on Car and Driver’s Ten Best list forever through all its different iterations. It’s still hard to believe the Accord began life as this small hatchback given how big they have become in the last 20 years.
Those first Accords were notorious for rust. However, my ’77 Accord lived its entire life in Arizona, and rust never became even the tiniest issue. What I remember about the car is how very well fitted and finished it was–far better than any Toyota or Datsun of the time, in that nothing in the styling was clunky or overdone, and the impression was one of near-seamlessness, inside and out. It was lively enough for my needs, and handled and rode very pleasantly. I did have to scrounge a front axle once, after a CV boot tore and dirt got into the CV joint. I also had to scrounge a front driver’s seat when the bracket for the seat back broke. And yes, I had to have the timing belt replaced, right at around 60,000 miles, as required. There were lots of things, though, that I could take care of myself–including valve adjustment. Get the valves right, and that thing would hum like a sewing machine–smooth and quiet. Eventually, though, it was time to move on to something else. But I got five or six years out of it, and they were good years.
My mother had the first one in Victoria with the Honda Matic that she really enjoyed being able to “shift” her own gears. Got my DL on that car and did a high school rally, with the dead last but finished award lol. This replaced the lovely Cricket my dad bought my mom as a “surprise”. Yup, that went well…….
It then went to my youngest sister who took it to Alberta with her where the rust really got it.
My mom got a 4 door Accord LX, only a few years older (still had the round headlights) but a proper AT. Kept it till she and my dad had to give up driving.
Great cars and really set my expectations for vehicles I wanted to own.
I remember seeing these ugly sh!t boxes on the road when I was a kid. I felt embarrassed for those who drove them. You don’t see them anymore… they probably all rusted back into the ground where they belong.
Yeah, the Accord certainly failed big time. Hardly ever see them anymore, and deservingly so.
Yes, neighborhoods across the country are teeming with those marvelously styled and impeccably built as well as rustproof Pintos, Gremlins, and Vegas, both the first generation of them as well as the current versions 40-odd years and 8 or 9 generations later. Oh, wait…
My theory about the Accord’s initial success? Why, it was our Cheapskate Dads in the Seventies. We either had (or had a friend who had) a dad who absolutely, positively freaked out about the additional 4 cents a gallon unleaded gas cost over leaded. By gawd-they weren’t gonna pay for it and they were for sure NOT going to buy anything that took unleaded only. Once Honda introduced the Accord in the USA, our Cheapskate Dads fell in love with the Accord for their favorite reason: it ran on good ol’ regular gas! It also had some room inside! It was screwed together rather well! It didn’t have the Dirty Commie Plot catalytic converter! But still-the Holy Grail of our CSD–Regular, Leaded Gas is what it took!! It was like a car company had listened to all of the CSD’s out there and listened to the one thing they wanted. As a bonus-they also got introduced to a high quality car that wasn’t pretentious, gave them decent value for the money, was economical to run, had some room inside, and was very reliable (as compared to a lot of other malaise-era cars back then). Honda had a winner on their hands when they initially sold the Accord in America.
I’m not sure that cheapskates were buying these cars. My father wasn’t necessarily a total cheapskate, but I’m sure that, if he had looked at this car and the sticker price, he immediately would have compared it to a contemporary Oldsmobile (Omega or Cutlass S).
Most cheapskates would have balked at the sticker price, particularly since Honda dealers were able to sell these at sticker, or more (mandatory $100 floor mats, $100 mud flaps, etc.).
And the Honda dealers weren’t concerned about offering much for the trade-in. If a prospect said “no” to any aspect of the deal, there were two more waiting to buy the car.
The first Accord of this generation in our small town was bought by a rather wealthy veterinarian. He was most definitely not a cheapskate.
My dad had tried buying American cars during the 70’s after his string of Saab’s through the 60’s. The local dealership closed and 60 miles to the next dealers was too far to drive a busted Saab.
The 69 Camaro – one of a couple hundred thousand GM cars with poorly designed engine mounts – the right one would break tipping the engine so that the throttle stuck wide open. GM’s solution ? A piece of chain hooking the engine to the shock tower so if the mount broke the engine couldn’t tip.
Then the 74 Plymouth that would never run because of the pollution controls. It also had the infamous seatbelt/ignition interlock.
Then a 78 Malibu with the Rubbermaid dash, and the factory mandatory-option misaligned rear axle. Didn’t help that somebody slim-jimmed the passenger door lock and stole my mom’s purse.
Finally the Volare with the magic disappearing front fenders.
Next – the Honda Accord. Ziebarted at the dealers, it hit 100K before the tin worm took it off the road, and that wasn’t bad in those days. More importantly, it never pissed off my dad. It always started, and there were no ugly surprises. He really liked it, and never even considered another American car after that. He did switch to Toyota though because when he went to replace the Accord, the Honda dealer only had mop n’ glo, pinstriped, custom wheel-covered, floor-matted and fog-lighted, availability mark up cars for sale. Toyota was ready to deal, and they kept him as a customer til his death in 2000.
This is another Great American Mystery. Here in Europe those were a non-event when new and by the time I came to the UK in 1989 mostly died due to terminal rust (they rusted far worse than British Leyland’s ghastliest products, believe it or not). It and its immediate successors were thought of as worthy yet infinitely dull cars for retirees; driving one meant an instant street-cred destroyer if you were under 40. Exciting Hondas would come but much later but since then, Honda somehow managed to “retrieve” the old age pensioner image again, with the attendant drop in sales.
So I have to put it down to reliability (or VW’s and other Europeans’ failure to come into terms with emission controls).
No question which car I’d choose today if I had to decide between a Mk I Golf and the Honda…
I’d choose the Honda too
Honda had some difficulty meeting the 1978 emission requirements. so In November of 1977 they made a batch of 1977 models. All were blue. I was working in insurance and had a agent 3 hours away who said his local Honda dealer had 5 in stock. I was in Central Ohio, and there were none. The local dealers would take your order at well above MSRP.
I called the dealer with the in stock Accords and made a deal at list price, no trade. My parents lived an hour from the dealer, so my wife and I made plans for an adventure. We took a bus (mistake) Friday evening from Columbus, Ohio to my home town. My work buddy took us to the bus depot, with a happy hour stop on the way. The idea was that we would have one car to drive back.
The bus took forever but we made it and stayed the night a my parent’s. The next day was snowy with a couple inches and more coming. I was hoping my Father would drive us the one hour to the dealership, but he was busy. We drove his 1974 Olds convertible, rear wheel drive, no snow tires, through the storm. It continued to snow and there were 4 or 5 inches when we got to the dealership. I asked my wife if she wanted to drive her barnd new car or my Father’s. She chose the Accord. It continued to snow and the 1 hour return trip took 2.
The Accord was great when new. We had AC added by a local dealer, and it worked well. The front fenders rusted quickly, and i had them replaced by my friend. Honda later reimbursed me. The carb clogged with something and had to be rebuilt. The dealer chared $12 or so for the kit, and no labor; no complaint. I recall front brake pad replacement, but that was all. Sold at 3 years for a big percentage of new cost.
We have now had 6 Hondas, and 14 or 15 Acuras.
A true game-changer. I remember 2 of my co-workers buying them and how impressive they were compared to the competition. I waited until ’81 – replacing our truly excremental ’78 Buick Regal Turbo Sport Coupe – with the last of the Mk1 Accords before the change to the ’82, which was even more impressive. Kept that for exactly 36 months before trading it in on a new ’84 Toyota Camry LE.
I should mention the only trouble I had was operation of the the turn signal eventually rubbed insulation off and shorted some of the wiring… tail or brake lights, I forget which.
Growing up in Marin County, foreign cars were the norm. Toyotas, Datsuns, Peugeots for sure, tons of VWs and maybe more Volvos, BMWs. There was affluence but it wasn’t gauche. The Accord hit the market and people were selling their 320is to get one- and they seemed like a deal even with six-month waits and huge dealer markups. My “rich” friend’s family got one and I was so impressed. They lived amongst the wealthiest in the county but the Accord was the “it” car to have. Eventually my older sister got one used. The quality was staggering (yes, I remember the velvet lined coin box). Later, when the third gen (with flip up headlights) debuted, I remember one of the car magazines said its dimesions matched almost exactly, the 5-series. Honda set sights high and delivered.
In mid ’76 the “Super Scirocco” became available in California (CIS fuel injected), I would have chosen one of these over the Honda. I do agree the Rabbit is a better comparison between the two cars, but the Zenith carb these early(’75-’76) VW’s had was a troublesome piece of garbage, and would commonly destroy the catalytic converter (sometimes plugging up the exhaust system as well).
I owned a ’75 Rabbit, it ran great and trouble free after removing the AIR pump, converter, and replacing the Zenith carb with a Holly-Weber (Pinto) carb conversion. Valve seals were Also a trouble spot, the updated green seals cured this. VW did recall the early fuel injected cars and replaced the seals at no charge, but the recall did not cover carbureted versions, they were easy to replace with the head still on the car.
I had a ’77 Rabbit later on, it was a reliable car ran great with it’s smog gear in place, I’d pick a ’77 over the Civic. But I was working for VW dealerships at the time, so it was a big advantage having a shop and helpful techs right at work should service be needed.
https://www.ebay.com/i/351571761010?chn=ps&ul_ref=https%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F711-117182-37290-0%252F2%253Fmpre%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.com%25252Fi%25252F351571761010%25253Fchn%25253Dps%2526itemid%253D351571761010%2526targetid%253D483853114067%2526device%253Dt%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D9033604%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D1499095126%2526adgroupid%253D64669591424%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-483853114067%2526abcId%253D1139396%2526merchantid%253D100448998%2526gclid%253DEAIaIQobChMI3KX5m-KI3QIVFsNkCh3aAAegEAQYAyABEgIqLfD_BwE%2526srcrot%253D711-117182-37290-0%2526rvr_id%253D1644301747228%2526rvr_ts%253D72384fd21650ac3dc5343d4bffe28adc
Meant to say Accord, not Civic.
My sister owned a ’79 Accord 5 speed 4door sedan for a few years, she put a lots of trouble free miles on the car and loved it, the paint did not hold up well, this was SoCal so rust issues.