This is my favorite generation Accord, as it was still a very lithe and light and nippy car, yet quite refined too. And it came in wagon too. There were only two generations of Accord wagons, this being the first. The next generation was a good car, as were all Accords, but looked a bit dull and dreary. I could have seen myself in one of these. And someone else did too, as it wasn’t there long with its For Sale sign.
No price, but I suspect it wasn’t much. But if it was still running fine, it probably will for some time to come. That’s why there’s still a few of these around. A classic Eugene beater-mobile.
The interior appears to be in decent shape. It’s an automatic. Honda started out a bit behind the curve with its two-speed Hondamatic, but it quickly went to a three speed Hondamatic in 1979, and just four years later debuted the four speed. How many cars from Detroit had four speed automatics in 1983?
In terms of modern standards, the back seat wasn’t exactly lavish with legroom, but it seemed pretty adequate in its day. We’ve gotten spoiled by modern standards. But then this Accord is almost the exact same length as today’s Civic.
Strictly speaking, the styling on this wagon wasn’t exactly stellar, as it’s really just a sedan with a long roof. The wagon version only arrived for the 1991 model year, a year after the sedan and coupe. It was only built in the US at Marysville, OH, but were exported to Japan and Europe, where it was called the Aerodeck. That applied to the coupe too.
The rear cargo area is ideal for hauling dogs.
I had a friend whose parents bought an Accord sedan of this generation. It was really my first hands-on exposure to a mainstream Japanese sedan.
I was not impressed at the time riding in it. I found it coarse, cramped, harsh, and rather spartan compared to the B-body wagon my parents had. Contrary to what many car enthusiasts often like to imply, domestics weren’t doing everything wrong. It wasn’t bad by any means, just somewhat of a letdown to me with all the accolades it received. I didn’t see much appeal as a family car. Then again, I had just reached 15 and grew up in a time where luxury had typically meant brougham.
Had I driven it or owned one over a number of years, no doubt I would have liked it quite a bit more.
Realistically, this generation of Japanese cars were not leaps and bounds better than a comparable American, but they had certain inherent things that made them a better value. Mainly, they came with more features standard, or upgraded over the base option offered in the American cars. A base model American car stickered lower, but once you put the same features into one, the Japanese one often came in cheaper, with better gas mileage, and none of the baggage that came with driving an American car in the early 1990s. As far as I remember, the main difference to me was in width. Japanese cars conformed to the Japanese rules and were more narrow in width, causing the interiors to be slightly more cramped in my opinion. I think this model was a bit wider than the predecessor, and he Camry was given the wider body in 1991, and that led to more Americans being comfortable in them.
Agreed on the Japanese not quite being American-sized during this era, but when you say “were not leaps and bounds better than a comparable American,” think of what American midsizers were at the time: GM A-bodies and W-body Lumina, Dodge Spirit/Acclaim, the Taurus was the only domestic really putting up a fight (and winning, in terms of sales 92-95 iirc).
We can debate it, but I stand by the fact that the Americans were adequate competition, even though they lacked a lot of refinement. It’s not like a Lumina or Spirit totally sucked, nor did the Camry, Altima, or Accord completely overwhelm. I really cannot think of a model that is leaps and bounds better than most of its competition. When they make a better car, it usually defines a new class.
If you don’t think one of these Accords or especially a ’92 Camry didn’t completely and totally obliterate the likes of an Acclaim or A-body Century or 1st gen Lumina in terms of quality and refinement, modern design and dynamics, man I don’t know what planet you’re from.
I think you have a point – if we were talking an owner who bought new and drove for 4-5 years before trading in. For the person who kept the car for 10-15 years there was a BIG difference between the top tier Japanese and all but a few American vehicles. And the Taurus was not one of them.
YMMV from mine. I give JPC credit to the fact that anyone owning one for 10-15 years would have come out light years ahead with the Accord, but when one buys new, they usually do not plan on that long of ownership. Likewise, in the used market, these Accords were way more desirable than a Lumina or Acclaim, and prices reflected that fact. But in terms of a new car on the showroom floor, every midsize car of that era was more similar in basic architecture and build than they were different. They were not worlds apart. That’s the case for almost any segment of cars or trucks.
For example, the F150, the Silverado, the Ram, the Tundra, and the Titan are all about the same in form and function, yet the Ford has the better reputation and it shows in the used market. The aluminum bed or the new funky tailgates simply differentiate them, and we will see how they affect the long term lives of these models. However, if you bought a pickup, any of them would probably fit your needs, if not your individual taste. Nobody is groundbreaking. And the difference between the best and the worst is really not that large.
In that era (as opposed to today) I believe that a lot of number of people moved from a US branded to a Japanese branded vehicle. However, I do not believe that the converse is anywhere near as true. Once people moved away from the Big Three in that segment they were mostly gone for good. And then they looked at what other segments they could explore. I have never (and yes this would be anecdotal) heard of anyone trading in an Accord or Camry for a Spirit or Lumina. Maybe a Taurus but that’s definitely to do with slightly larger space, power, and generally good press.
Today, when looking at midsizers the Fusion and Malibu likely rate a look along with the Koreans but I still think it’s tougher to get someone from an Accord or Camry to move into a Fusion or Malibu than the other way around.
yet the Ford has the better reputation and it shows in the used market.
Not so. The Tundra consistently has the highest resale value in its class. In fact, it’s #3 among all vehicles for highest resale value. #2 is the Toyota 4 Runner, and #1 is the Tacoma.
JFrank I’ll direct you to Mary Walton’s “Car” about the development of the 1996 Taurus. Early on in the book, in 1992 just as the updated ’92 Taurus is hitting showrooms and the project team is starting to work on the ovoid ’96, the ’92 Camry hits the scene and Ford buys a number for comparative analysis and testing, taking the cars down to the nuts and bolts to do cost and quality analysis. The Camry literally sent the team back to the drawing board. In terms of ride, shift quality, all the interior switches and touch points, it may as well have been from another planet. I respect cars like the A-bodies and Acclaims and such for being roomy affordable family transportation, and even being reasonably robust mechanically (depending on powertrain). But they were crude and lacking in build quality, and stodgy inside and out.
When you talk about resale value, one thing to understand is that Tundras are stickered a bit lower but sell fairly close to sticker, while F-150’s are stickered higher but can usually be had for $12K+ less than MSRP. So the resale of the Tundras can be a bit deceiving because you are usually paying thousands more up front for a comparable truck. I just bought a 2018 F-150 at the end of the year after months of looking for a used one. I didn’t intend to buy new, but it only cost a few thousand more than a 2-3 year old truck with the incentives they had at the time, which for me totaled $17K. Which was heck of a deal, but most Ford dealers had around $14K off so it wasn’t crazy. Tundra prices weren’t even in the same ballpark.
So while I’m sure Tundra resale can be better than the F-150, it’s pretty easy to save enough on an F-150 purchase to more than compensate for that.
Realistically, this generation of Japanese cars were not leaps and bounds better than a comparable American,
It depends on your priorities. If you wanted a car that exuded good quality in its build and materials, a four cylinder engine that hummed instead of groaned, a slick 5-speed transmission, and tight steering and handling, the domestic competition was sorely lacking. What domestic would you compare against an Accord for these qualities?
If you wanted a soft, plush cruiser and din’t have any genuine appreciation for these qualities as well as longer term reliability and durability, the Big 3 had your car.
And we can see how this played out over the long haul. Turns out there were more folks in the first category than the second, eh?
I was not impressed at the time riding in it. I found it coarse, cramped, harsh, and rather spartan compared to the B-body wagon my parents had.
Oranges and apples.
It all depends on your priorities. If you actually like the act of driving, a 5 speed Accord was like a 4-door Miata compared to the B-Body. Day and night.
The issue is that most people did not share those priorities. They still don’t.
We seem to be arguing over who is more of an enthusiast than the other. Paul, you seem to take it personally if someone does not appreciate things the way you do. Every opinion is correct to those espousing one.
The great buying public would drive a 1957 Studebaker Scotsman if they thought it was the popular choice. They buy whatever is being marketed to them. They don’t care to drive, it is just something to be done to get from point a to point b and they just want something they can add gas to (or charge) and then put it in D and drive. They don’t care about ride. They couldn’t be concerned if it carves corners. 0-60 times only matter as it gets them onto the freeway from the on-ramp.
The great buying public would drive a 1957 Studebaker Scotsman if they thought it was the popular choice. They buy whatever is being marketed to them
People aren’t nearly as stupid as you make them out to be. They can tell an attractive or reliable car from an unattractive or unreliable one. See what happened with Chevy, Ford and Plymouth big car sales between 1957 and 1964. You think Plymouth and Dodge sales crashed in 1958 because the marketing was better at Ford or Chevy? Or why Chevy creamed both Ford and Plymouth in 1961-1964? Better advertising?
The simple reality is that there’s a reason why the Camry and Accord came to dominate the sales charts for their category: reliability, quality, resale value, driving dynamics, smoother running engines, perceived material quality, etc.. It was not better marketing. Your comment suggests a deep lack of knowledge of the car market, and how and why the Big 3 failed against the Japanese.
It’s clear the Big 3 excelled at marketing. Look where it got them. People are not quite as dumb as you think.
I don’t think individuals are stupid, but I do think that the general public does react to marketing more than you do.
Remember the PT Cruiser craze? Paying over sticker for a reworked Neon, which was a bastion of greatness, right?
The thing about this is that I never said that the Accord was not a good car. Quality of build was better, engineering better (but not a technological breakthough, my original point with “leaps and bounds”), and the masses left the USA brands as they figured out the Big 3 were just not producing better cars.
Part of marketing is building an attractive car. The 1957 Plymouths sold very well based on the “Suddenly, it’s 1960” marketing that went with them. The quality issues that affected Plymouth did affect the 1958-on versions, but the 1957 ones sold quite well. Remember that the 1957 Ford outsold the Chevy, but quality was suspect on them as well.
Yes, overall quality does affect decisions, but mostly later ones. History confirms if a car is good or not, but when selling new, it’s always a crapshoot with any OEM at any time. Quality reinforces the next new car buy, but marketing does as well. The Asians were good at kaizen, and they did less marketing budget and more engineering/build quality. The Big 3 did the opposite. Yes, it is killing the big 3, but it is a lot of factors in the mix.
I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument, so I shall just drop it. I will say that I take a bit of offense at your saying I have a deep lack of knowledge of the market. People can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. I do come from the sales end, while Paul is more of a statistician. I see where people can be and often are heavily swayed in their decisions based on marketing. It may not lead to continued sales, but as most American OEMs live for the current based on Wall Street demands, not the future, it is what they excel at. Non-US brands don’t seem to have to bend to the will of Wall Street quite as much. Does it portend well for the US OEMs? No, but it is what it is.
Yes, apples and oranges, but you have to understand that in my part of the Midwest few people wanted the Accords. The soft, roomy, and comfortable domestics were a better fit in more rural areas. They only begrudgingly started buying Japanese cars when the quality gap became too great to ignore.
You can still see this today to some extent with full size trucks having become the go-to family haulers.
I think that the Accord and Camry were markedly better cars than the Big Three offerings–and I say this as some one who was always trying to get people to ‘buy American’, because I felt it was patriotic (and good for our economy….Americans making money, buying stuff, paying my salary via taxes…)
I tried to get my girlfriend to consider a new 95 Contour….we test drove it, but she wanted either a Camry or Accord. She got a new 95 Accord (which I like more than this one)
The Taurus came close–it traded size for refinement. The GM offerings had even less refinement–though the adage, “a Chevy will will run poorly longer than most other cars will run” is pretty applicable to Celebrities and Luminas and post-99 Impalas (though the FINAL Impala iteration was a nice car, IMO, and BIG inside).
However, unlike Paul, I’m not a fan of this iteration of Accord. This Accord was too Americanized for me. The previous Accord, IMO, was the high water mark.
I feel cars are ‘relative’. Today’s cars are objectively better–but they are all quite good, so it’s harder to stand out. From 1985-1989, the Accord was probably the perfect car for some one who liked driving, and needed some room, and valued reliability. While I didn’t buy one (I bought a Golf GTI), I certainly would have been happy with one. It was like a Prelude with a back seat and trunk.
Still, I concede this here Accord was an excellent car. It certainly had room for four 20-somethings to drive 50 miles to a big city for a night out–my 5-11 body sat in the back–more room than the 89, and it was a nice driver. But I still much prefer the 3rd generation that preceded it.
My sister had a sedan with a 5-speed. Very nice driving car, and really great visibility because of the low beltline and thin roof pillars.
And as we see from your photos, the interior material quality was very high. Like the Dodge Dart, they never should have stopped making these. Although that would be interesting, cross shopping a new 1969 Dart against a new 1991 Accord in 2019. 🙂
My two main concerns with this car is the expired registration and the lack of dual airbags. The car does look pretty good for its age and given that the 720 Area Code is from Colorado I am guessing being a Mile up roasted the paint a bit.
Honda only put the driver’s airbag on the wagon – all other versions got the “motor mouse” automatic seatbelts to satisfy the federal passive-restraint requirement.
Dual airbags were not offered by any manufacturer on any model in 1991, and only a few models anywhere got driver’s airbags – mostly those that debuted or refreshed after 1989.
Dual airbags were standard equipment on the 1989 Lincoln Continental (which I believe was the first) and the 1990 Town Car. It is true that for the 1991 model year some cars were built with drivers side airbags only because Ford had problems sourcing enough propellant for the production run (this showed up as a credit on the window sticker).
I know folks don’t criticize the reduction in cargo space of the “sport” wagons like my TSX. Still it looks a whole lot better than this crafted on design. Still for a 91 car it is in pretty good cosmetic shape.
My oldest son is still driving his ’93 SE 4-door sedan with over 200k on it. He’s had it for seven years and it’s been a good ride for him, only reason he doesn’t get a newer ride is that he’s paying off some debts at present.
Peak Honda indeed. Even at its age it’s an engaging enjoyable drive.
Little Man looks ready to hop in!
I owned an automatic ’92 EX sedan. A practical, good handling car. But not all was perfect. The transmission shifted fairly harshly through the gears as all automatic Hondas did (I later came to understand). Why? Because the old Honda automatics were basically hydraulic-actuated manual transmissions. A fairly simple, ingenious design but not Hydramatic smooth. This same design proved ultimately fragile for the much heavier V6 Hondas like the Odyssey (which I also owned — failed transmission and many other problems). In response to my complaint the dealer said the harshness was normal. The service manager said it even had a name: “Positive Shift.” What a load. BTW, the seats look nice but they are rock hard. The inside door handles on all these cars also had a tendency to often break since the hinging is incorporated into the actual bezel. I don’t miss that car, and to this day wonder why I didn’t buy a Camry instead.
2nd gen Accord wagon was galvanized and was 3 inches longer than the sedan
2nd gen Accord wagon had an Acura rear suspension and had Acura brakes
It was heavier but more substantial in build
“had an Acura rear suspension and had Acura brakes”
What exactly does that mean? Both gens have the unfortunate captive rotor design, a pain in the *ss for shadetree mechanics. Both have independent trailing arm suspension in the back, I’m not aware of how they are radically different.
Buddy of mine had an Accord of this generation, a coupe. What I remember most about it are three things: (1) the commanding view from the front passenger seat, (2) how everything about it felt smooth and refined, and (3) how bloody uncomfortable those hard seats were on trips of longer than an hour, even on my (at that time) 20-something butt. All that said, we need a beater here for our young son to commute to school in and if one of these were available in this condition here I’d suck it right up.
These came along after I had married an 88 Accord, built midway through the prior generation (with the popup headlights). I recall a consensus that Honda had played it too safe with the design and I felt these a little less “youthful” than our car. I will say though that this design really made inroads with middle America, to the point where even my father owned one for awhile.
I eventually came to really respect these because they seemed to have solved the body rust problems that had given Honda the rustbucket reputation that they had previously had, and because I met or heard of so many people who racked up insanely high miles on them with few mechanical problems.
I would have no hesitation owning one of these if a really sweet one plopped itself in my path. The wagons were never common in my area.
What makes this generation more desirable is the SE/EX version with the 140 hp fuel injected engine, bigger alloy wheels, fatter tires, rear stabilizer bar and upgraded upholstery. A very compelling package; a BMW in Honda clothes.
Also, it got a 3″ wheelbase stretch for better leg room.
I recently meet an elderly lady at my mechanic who was driving a white 92 wagon like this. Did my best to convince her to sell it to me, to no avail. She showed me her log book. Every gallon of gasoline, quart of oil and bit of service or repair was recorded from day one.
LOL, when you see one of those you stand no chance.
Todays Civic is as long as this wagon! Oh, Honda what have you done to your Civic? I had a 1980 wagon and I have driven a new Civic sedan. Guess which one I absolutely hate? Should do a story on my 80 which I still miss.
You found the following generation dreary? I thought it looked almost like a four-door Prelude and I loved it… until the mid-cycle facelift when it absolutely did end up looking dreary and bland.
Personally, though I wouldn’t call the following generation dreary, I see where Paul is coming from. The North American fifth generation was rather bland, despite the fourth generation’s conservative looks.
While the fourth generation took its inspiration from the BMW E30, the fifth generation was rather “blah”, and hasn’t aged well in comparison IMHO.
The horizontal taillights and blander detailing of the facelift gave the fifth an anonymous “any car” look. Ironically, the subsequent generation – styled at the height of Japan’s design austerity phase that brought with it so many bloody boring-looking cars – actually looks better to my eyes.
Agree with you and Paul though that the fourth generation was handsome and almost premium in its looks. I still love the third-generation the most though. The most gorgeous Accord yet.
I once owned a ’91 EX 5M sedan in this color (Seattle Silver) 2001-2003. I may have still been driving it if it weren’t unfortunately wrecked (not my fault!) on my way to work one day. It was quiet, smooth, solid, efficient, inexpensive to repair when necessary, and still like new to drive at 160K miles. Honda’s reputation in the early 90s was nearly untouchable, and this car exemplified it. There was a reason it was the best selling car in the United States that year.
One curiousity about this year of Accords was that only the wagon had a driver-side airbag in it; the coupes and sedans Iacked one and had those annoying motorized shoulder belts to comply with the passive restraint law. I was bothered at how long Honda took to fit their cars with airbags and anti-lock brakes (also unavailable on ’91 Accords and most ’92s and ’93s as well). I advised a friend at the time not to buy an Accord for this reason and instead get a Taurus which had both safety features.
I could never warm up to these wagons for a reason I can’t quite out my finger on… I had two sedans of this generation and indeed they were every bit as overbuilt as you’d be led to believe
That said, this looks like a sedan with the roof addition grafted on (which it basically was – rear doors are shared.)
On the other hand, I am in love with the 92-96 Camry wagon, and owned a couple of them. Easily one of the best cars I’ve ever owned. Expressive if quirky styling, utility and refinement!
This is probably my favorite generation Accord as well, as in many ways it was truly the most perfect Accord. This fourth generation Accord is the last evolution of what I’d call the original Honda Accord, before it was enlarged, given available V6 power, and also somewhat cheapened out.
As the last in this evolution of the original Accord, this fourth generation sought not to be the biggest, but rather the best, giving buyers significant refinement and quality for the money.
While conservative in appearance, the fourth generation Accord looked and felt expensive within its size and price class for its time. Its styling was purposeful without being trendy, its interior was comfortable without being gimicky, and its performance was spirited without being over the top. In many ways, the fourth generation Honda Accord was the Accord that a German automaker would have built.
Excluding Acura TSX-badged Euro Accords sold in the United States (a 2010 which I owned), the only other U.S. Accord that comes close is the 2003-2007 version.
My wife had a 93 Accord Sedan. It was, I believe, the most trouble-free, reliable car I have ever experienced. The interior was comfortable, the engine and 5-speed transmission well matched, and it got over 30 mpg. We might still have it if it had not been stolen.
She now has a 2016 Accord Sedan. She likes the automatic, though I would prefer a manual, if they even make them that way anymore. This car also seems like a winner. Nothing fancy, but a comfortable, reliable, good-running car. It has a maintenance monitor that tells me when to change the oil (among other things) and the interval for the last change was close to 6,000 miles. Amazingly, the oil still looked decent when I changed it.
Because I tend to carry a lot of stuff around, I have always liked hatchbacks and wagons, and Honda wagons were high on my list of desirable cars. Alas, they are pretty rare where I live, and they command a higher price than I was willing to pay. I have never had one, but I stop and think of the possibilities whenever I see one. They aren’t very good looking in my opinion, but I imagine that they serve their purpose admirably and without complaint.
The picture is one I saw while bicycling around Portland earlier last year. It seems to be a 96 or so, nicely preserved, still on the job after all these years.
I join the chorus of those who think these (and the corresponding sedans) are peak Accord (and, as my parents owned a 1991 Civic DX hatchback, I would also say, peak Honda). I had a fifth grade teacher who owned a pair of the Accord wagons, I believe both were beige. This was in the early 90s a few years after these were new. He planned to keep them “forever” and couldn’t talk them up enough.
Anyone who’s read my posts knows they aren’t what I viscerally seek in a car but I can understand why people liked them, and I like them. Wish you could still get a wagon like this new. If I were commuting daily, I’d consider it.
When these came out, I thought they were too conservative looking. But as I got older the cleaner design won me over, and it has stood the test of time. I’ve never driven this generation, but am open to getting one as a beater if it comes along. The shape lends itself to the wagon style extremely well in my opinion. I am surprised by the hard seat comments, because my ’79 and ’89 LXs both had great seats.
So the 2 speed Hondamatic was just a little bit behind for being used in the late ’70s. GM is lambasted here for using the Powerglide for too long (rightly so) and Honda gets a pass. GM also had multiple four speed automatic transmissions available in 1983.
I’ve had a few friends that owned 4th gens fairly recently in 2012-2014, one was a friend who drive his totally rust free ’92 Seafoam 5spd EX Coupe out to Indianapolis when he moved out here for a job (before returning 2 years later). I changed the CV axles for him at about 212K miles, the car was still a strong runner and in great shape. The suspension only had a few slightly loose balljoints/bushings in the rear suspension, that’s literally it as far as other issues. he actually had it stolen a few years prior, it had been recovered with its original alloy wheels replaced with steelies and a few other random small bits missing (washer fluid cap?). He had bought it from the original owner with 120k miles IIRC for $2000, sold it for $1200 to a friend before buying a used Legacy wagon with hidden rust repairs to drive back to the West Coast.
Second friend, finished with college and in need of some cheap wheels to get around town and to visit a gf in NYC from Ithaca NY. Found him a ’92 DX Coupe, in that grey/purple color and black plastic bumpers, 130k miles, automatic, half-dollar sized spots of rear quarter panel rot, got it for $950. He had to put new rotors, a high pressure steering line, and a thermostat in it, that’s it in the 2 years he owned it. Many drama free drives to NYC and back. When he was gifted a ’09 Corolla by his folks and was moving to NYC, I helped him polish up the Accord a bit and listed it on CL for $1950. Sold for full asking price within 3 days.
Fantastic cars, overbuilt as hell and definitely a hoot to drive, even with the automatic. I’ve become more of a Toyota guy over the years of living where bad roads are the norm, but I still respect those older double wishbone Hondas both for how engaging they are to drive, and how well made they were. I still see 4th gens regularly in Central Indiana, something that cannot be said for 1st or 2nd gen Tauri, for example.
We would have bought one, no question, in 1993, but like the Camry wagon, the Accord wagon was AT only until the next generation. So we bought our Corolla instead. By the way, since we wanted a wagon and an MT, the only Detroit products we cross-shopped were Escort and Saturn, just to do our due diligence. Not even from the same planet as the Japanese. I think we looked at the Escort for about five seconds before my wife said, “OK, let’s go”. It took about ten seconds to get the same response with the Saturn.
“How many cars from Detroit had four speed automatics in 1983?”
Quite a few, depending upon one’s interpretations of platform vs. model.
General Motors
E-Body: Riviera/Eldo/Seville/Toro – standard
D-Body: DeVille/Fleetwood Brougham – standard
C-Body: Electra-PA/98 – standard
B-Body: Caprice/88/LeSabre – optional with 307/350 diesel
G-Body: Regal T-Type with Turbo (could be mistaken here..)
Ford
Panther: Town Car/MK VI/G-M/Crown Vic – standard
Fox: Cougar/T-Bird – standard with 302, optional with 3.8
Fox Marquis/LTD – optional with 3.8
So how does this compare with the Japanese?
Toyota
Cressida/Supra/Camry/Celica/Corolla – optional
Honda
Accord/Prelude – optional
Nissan
Maxima – optional
Mistubishi
Starion – optional?
Mazda
RX7 – optional?
You completely missed my point. I was talking about the direct competition for the Accord and Camry.
Do you want to make a second list showing the 4-speed automatics from the Big 3 for their Accord-Camry competitors in 1983? The biggest and most competitive segment of the market?
And how are the Big 3 Camcord competitors doing now?
Well you said ‘cars from Detroit’, so I responded with a list of American cars, and compared/contrasted that with what was available in Japan.
Now if you had from the very beginning said ‘list of competitors’ as you say you meant to do, you have a point, but then again, it’s hard to really pinpoint the exact competition for the Camry and Accords of the era, as I assume they were cross shopped with both bigger and smaller cars.
But let’s go ahead and try. For the purposes of this debate it would probably be easiest to illustrate the first year a 4-speed became available for a car offered in the compact/midsize segment. So here it goes…
1977 Cressida (first 4 speed OD?)
1981:. Corona?
1982:. Maxima?
1983:. LTD/Marquis, Accord
1985:. A-bodies, Galant
1987:. 626/Stanza
1989:. Chrysler EEK, AA cars
1990:. Passat
1993:. Jetta/Golf
1994:. N-bodies
1995:. Contour/Mystique
That’s about everything in the compact/midsize class, right? Would you include anything else? This is a difficult list to create because cars are not always directly comparable, and expectations of size and class change with time.
Tempo is more comparable in ’83/84 (in theory) than the Fox body LTD. That being said, our family had two Fox LTD’s and a same year Camry or Accord would have FAR outclassed them in virtually every metric bar interior space.
VW Quantum would be in there as well, but if anything even more marginally than the Galant.
Corona became the Camry (over here at least) and the Maxima and Cressida were always a size class above Camry/Accord, never mind being 6cyl only.
I don’t know why Honda insists on rock-hard seats with no thigh support in their Accords. I own one (a 2006) and I’ve had to bolster the seat cushion to make it tolerable for more than a half-hour of driving. People generally don’t seem to mind Accord seats, nor the lint and hair that sticks to the velour seat and door material, maybe because of the import “quirk” phenomenon westerners like to fall for. Too bad Taurus seats won’t bolt in.
I am a fan of these. I never once thought about them when they were new–I was 21 and these were a middle age appliance. When I was 29 or so and these were secondhand cars I drove a friend’s EX Coupe 5M and it was a revelation. Visibility was earily good, engine and trans were so well-matched and flawlessly tractable. Styling was non-descript but very well proportioned and detailed. Interior was very high quality.
With respect to JFrank’s comment–my parents owned a Plymouth Acclaim and they were not anywhere near the same league if you payed any attention whatsoever to how they drove, quality, etc. Nothing wrong with the Acclaim, but it and the GM counterparts were nowhere near these in terms of refinement nor durability. Sure you can drive the domestic ones for many years for low cost, but they are just not in the same league. If they had maintain competitiveness then camcords would not have completely replaced the domestic sedan as has happened in the past few years.
I was weaned on GM growing up in the 60’s, 70’s & 80’s until soon after my wife and I married in ’84. When we need to replace her ’79 Camaro we (I) fell for a new ’85 Pontiac 6000 STE. Unfortunately like my first new car a ’77 Camaro it was riddled with an inane number of issues right out the door. More unfortunate the STE’s issues were just beginning. Over the next 8 years it needed 4 rack & pinions, 3 windshield washer pumps, countless power door lock membrane switches. 2 driver’s seat aluminum frame replacements, 4 repaints due to peeling and the list goes on.
Around summer of ’88 someone keyed the STE in a parking lot and it went to the body shop for repairs. While there I rented some loaners one of them was an ’88 LXi. At the time I only read about Honda’s but never drove one. When I did it was a revelation.
I can’t put my finger on it but the best way to say it was it didn’t do any one thing extraordinary but it did everything exceptionally well. Less powerful than the STE for sure but handled far better. Not as smooth a ride but tossable and competent. A less glitzy confusing Disco dash but ergonomically superior. Far better handling, visibility, quality of materials and just all around excellent. Bought my first one an ’89 SEi soon after to replace my ’77 Camaro and eventually replaced the STE with a ’93SE which we still have today. Sadly to this day I would never consider owning a GM product…
My friend Tyson Hugie and I shot this little vid last year to commerate it’s 25 Anny…
https://youtu.be/lV6yT92En-c
I still think Gen 4 is a high watermark in the Accord’s history. Never owned one, but came close once. Almost bought a 1990 LX Sedan in brown but ended up with a ’92 Camry LE V6. I really wanted a V6 and sadly the Gen 4 Accord did not offer it. I however did also once own a ’92 Taurus GL Sedan and ’97 GL Sedan as well. I think that Gen 3 of the Taurus, while an acquired taste by all means, iterated the fact that Ford was making a concerted effort to improve it’s quality overall. Had the visual design been more palatable to the public I think it could have been more of a success. IMO, the Tempaz twins should have been axed and the money that went into the Contique twins should have been allocated to the Taurus and Sable to be able to engineer better powertrains. I have read Mary Walton’s “Car”, and I recall that with exception of the new Duratec at the time, all the rest of the stuff was carryover and improved carryover dating to 1986, and minor tweaks made in 1994. The vulcan was reliable, but very slow with that antiquated transmission I recall. My ’92 Had a 3.8 Essex and was much more powerful and fun to drive, but the Accord and Camry of this same era were like another world compared to the ’92 Taurus. I remember how hard the plastics were on the doors and how chintzy the dash was after a few years and cracked quite easily. I liked the design but it did lack some refinement.
However, the ’96 was total overkill. And by the time the ’97 Camry and ’98 Accord arrived I remember scratching my head and wondering what was wrong with Ford. It seems like unnecessary self sabotage in hindsight to me 25 years later. Yes my ’97 had good features and quality, but in hindsight, not my favorite of all the cars I have owned, and proof that bad packaging can kill a customer base faster than a stink bomb can empty a high school auditorium.
I liked the lean looks of the Gen 4 Accord. They are scarce but the young kids seem to still be into them 30 years on. I still see a decent amount of them down here in Pueblo, CO. There was a really decent ’91 SE Sedan in Turqoise I saw a few weeks ago. It hit me that it was 30 years old now. Still doing it’s daily duty though.
This was my car!! I want it back!