If you had to drive something from 1990 or so, you couldn’t do better than one (or both) of these. Strictly speaking, the Corolla has the Accord beat in terms of longevity, as these E90 Corollas (as well as their predecessors and successors) are still very thicken the ground here, including one owned by our long-term tenant who rents the little cottage behind our house; she regularly takes three hour drives out to the southern Oregon coast to see her mom, and never thinks twice about doing so.
The gen4 Accord has a mighty stellar rep too, but they are quickly disappearing from the the streets here. Do they have weakness that eventually comes to bite them?
How did Toyota build the ultimate LLV (Long Life Vehicle)? And don’t start about them being dishwater dull; their brilliant little 1.6 L DOHC 4A-FE engines made 95 hp and scooted them right along, especially with a manual transmission. And they run so smoothly and refined. What more could anyone want in a little four?
The Accord was a class higher, and its all-new 2.2 L 16 valve fuel injected four was of course utterly brilliant. It was rated at 125 hp in the DX version; the EX had 140 hp, which made it a very fine sporting device that could still take the full family on brisk outings. I still pine for an EX…
It’s been eleven years since I picked up one of these Corollas for $200 from a tenant who thought the clutch was bad (it just needed some fluid in the clutch master cylinder). It was for my son’s GF, but she couldn’t get the hang of the stick, and then I sold it to the guy who helped me build my last house. I keep thinking I see it, but gray Corollas of this vintage are still so common, so who knows. I do know that you’re not going to pick up a running one for 4200 anymore, even if they are eleven years older now.
Nitpicking, but the 4A-FE in the E90 Corolla and Prizm had 102 hp. The 1990–91 Accord EX had 130 hp and didn’t get the 140 hp version (introduced on the 1991 SE) until 1992.
If I had to guess, I would say what eventually takes the Accord off the road is the timing belt. As the cars age, they often end up passing to people who can’t afford to do the timing belt/water pump swap at the recommended intervals, or who decide it’s not worth the cost. Since it’s an interference engine, a worn-out belt that eventually breaks may well do enough damage to the valve gear to effectively total the car.
That would be my guess. One of my best friends had one of these Accords passed down from his parents, and other than a worn interior from neglect by his older sister, it was in great shape and very reliable at over 200k miles. He tried to do a timing belt job himself and botched it, ruining all the valves. He fixed it with a junkyard head, but from what I remember the belt replacement wasn’t the easiest thing and if he wasn’t so determined to keep it going would have easily junked the car
I agree. Many of these Accords were second and third hand cars sold to folks who didn’t know about the issues of neglecting to do timely belt swaps. Otherwise these are peak Accords in terms of looks and quality. My 89 Prizm, a former Enterprise rental fleet car and gift from my then girlfriend and now wife of 20 plus years was a gem. Recently “let go” from my job in Sept 2001 my company car was taken from me (a 2000 Prius), it served me well for six months until I was compelled to purchase a new car for my new job’s 2 hour commute. One of the most comfortable interiors of any of my cars over the last 40 years of driving.
My 2003 Accord 2.4 has the timing chain and has been running smoothly and reliably for 245,000 miles but find it odd the 6 cylinder Accords all have belts till 2018 MY.
Even if people are aware of the need, the dilemma is that it can be expensive. The last time I needed to deal with a Honda timing belt/water pump swap, I think it cost around $700 at an independent shop and dealers wanted something like a grand. (This was 20 years ago, so it’s probably more now.) That’s a lot of money for 40-year-old used card that may have been inherited or gifted anyway.
Er, 30-year-old, but you see what I mean.
That’s exactly what does these in. My wife’s beloved ’93 base 2 door went this way, while it was on it’s 3rd niece down the line. At over 450,000 km, the cost combined with advancing rust finally didn’t make sense. Almost a family heirloom…
Unfortunately, a new Honda was more than she could swing. The Hyundai she did buy has been bulletproof for 3 years of commuting/kid/travel duty though.
These Accords were the best value on the road back in those days and IMO did much to hasten the demise of several domestic brands.
“she regularly takes three hour drives out to the southern Oregon coast to see her mom, and never thinks twice about doing so.”
Reliability … so important in people – and in vehicles (IMHO).
The following may be heresy to some (or many) CC’ers but I have never quite absorbed the concept of “dull driving cars”.
Granted I have a Miata, and it drives very nicely around town and has a “minimum sense of centrifugal force” in turns, but as a daily driver it is no more “exciting” (to me) than any other vehicle I have owned since 1960.
Actually, the Miata is not pleasant at throughway speeds (because of NVH) and while being very small might make it “sporty” to some, it can be intimidating to share the road with 80,000 pound tractor trailers whose drivers may not even be able to see me under certain conditions.
The long wheelbase ’13 4.0 Tacoma rides like limo and is a handy workhorse, but I’d never call it a “dull driver” any more than my old ’57 Olds, ’72 Impala, or ’02 PT Cruiser.
The primary concerns that are important to me are that the vehicles be reliable, safe, not leak from the top or the bottom, not vibrate or shake, and be reliable (I know, I said reliable twice).
Toyotas have a reputation (true or not) of being reliable but dull. Look up “reliable but dull” in a dictionary and you’ll find a photo of me.
Not your cup of tea? That’s fine; go get that exotic and exciting European zoomer. I’m happy that it makes you happy.
Believe me, I’d not want to live in a world where all the people were like me.
Talk about dull!
Driving excitement can take on a number of meanings. Like being stranded 100 miles from home, or driving a vehicle so poorly balanced it’s treacherous on slippery roads, or has (all too common today) lousy headlights. And so on.
For my family I like “dull” just fine!
“Reliability … so important in people – and in vehicles (IMHO).” Well said. You are preaching to the choir, Reverend Plaut. Arriving at my destination is a central part of the motoring experience for me. The attached photo is of various family members admiring my ’92 Prizm a few years ago.
Good engine as long as you change the timing belt in time.
If memory serves, rust was an issue for that generation of Accords. My father-in-law had a 1990 LX model and despite it being undercoated, rust started in the back fenders right over the wheel wells. Such a shame as it really was a nice car. I really can’t remember when I stopped seeing 4th generation Accords on a regular basis so finding one on the road is a rare occasion. An EX trim (or an SE) would be a great car to have.
Regarding the Corolla, any car company can build an “exotic” car that creates the aspiration of what the company is or can become. We accept the idea that such a car requires more maintenance and greater overall expense for the price of ownership. A Corolla has reliability, durability, a modicum of style, and will serve its owner well. It can be a viewed as a first car or spare car in some markets and serve as a family car in other markets at a reasonable price. The fact that you can still find that generation on the roads today is a testament to it’s core strength.
These Accords had FAR less trouble with rust than the prior Gen3 cars (1986-89). True, they would get that Honda Rust Spot ™ where the rear wheel opening meets the bumper, but the prior cars would rust everywhere.
I can certainly attest to that. My mother-in-law had a 1989 Honda Accord LXi hatch which she loved even better than the Pontiac Trans Am that preceded it. It was white with burgandy interior. Rust got it in the end. It even rusted on the a pillars which I had never seen before. She replaced it with a 2002 Honda Accord SE coupe (white with tan leather) and drove it until she passed away.
It’s still possible to see an Accord from this generation in daily use around southcentral Pennsylvania. Same with the post-1987 Civics. (I’ve seen early 2000s Ram, Ford and GM full-size pickups with more rust than these cars.)
Salt is still used on the roads in the winter, but not as heavily as it’s used in the western and northern parts of the state.
I am with RL Plaut above – the older I get, the higher a lack of automotive drama gets on my list of priorities.
There is still something appealing to me about cheap beaters of this age – my 07 Fit is kinda sorta like these, but it is more modern and therefore has more stupid age-related failure points. Like when the car left me stranded about a month ago because the security chip in my key failed. Things like that are not a problem with cars like these.
CC Effect – I saw one of these Accords, although in wagon form, cruise by me on my dog walk this morning. My neighbor had two of the E90 Corollas, one a wagon that he sold when he inherited a clean sedan from his dad. And another woman we know drove an E90 wagon until recently. Despite my experience this morning, I do think there are more of the Corollas still driving around here, than Accords. But in both cases quite a few seem to be wagons. For what it’s worth, it wasn’t until I discovered CC that I felt any regret about selling our own E100 wagon about ten years earlier.
Definitely among the best cars from 1990, and I still see both of them driving around in Florida. (In the Northeast, not so much.) The only thing I didn’t like about them were the motorized seatbelts. For ‘92, the Accord would get a driver’s airbag and normal seatbelts; the Corolla would get them for its ‘93 redesign. The Nissan Maxima was another great Japanese sedan from this time, with a great V6. My mother had one for 200,000 miles or so, until the transmission blew out. Those did, unfortunately, have those wretched motorized seatbelts until ‘95.
Yes, and those motorized seat belts (without airbags) were the main reason for our purchase of a 1990 Mercury Sable — the only reasonably priced midsize cars that year with a driver airbag and conventional belts were the Taurus/Sable, Olds Delta 88, and Dodge Dynasty. It was a no-brainer at the time to get the Sable, but it proved problematic in reliability beyond year 4.
I was going to say, I’d consider the ’90 Taurus overall a better car than the Accord, in part because of its airbag vs. no airbag and annoying motorized belts in the Accord. Also missing on the Accord was anti-lock brakes, which the Taurus offered in most Taurus sedans in 1990 and all Taurus models for 1991 (by the time the Accord sedan finally got a driver-only airbag in 1992, the Taurus offered dual front airbags). Other points favoring the Taurus were the wide variety of a la carte options, including numerous items not available on an Accord at any price. These included a power driver’s seat, power passenger’s seat (both with height and tilt adjustments not available even manually on the Accord), a split-bench seat option, auto temperature control, pushbutton keyless entry, cornering lights, a choice of analog or digital gauges, the Insta-Clear windshield, double sun visors, and lots more. And the Taurus had much more rear seat legroom, making it better suited for families or road trips with friends (i couldn’t stretch out my legs in the back of these Accords and I’m only 5’8″). I’d note the Taurus offered two distinct V6 engines vs. the Honda’s four-banger, but the Honda engines were so smooth and powerful the Ford’s thirstier V6 could be construed as a disadvantage.
I still see more A-Bodies (post 89 restyle Olds/Buick exclusively) than any pre 96 Taurus or pre 94 Accord and I can tell by grille and trim some are very early 90s. No one would deny the Accord is a more modern car and they probably averaged way more miles than an A-Body. I personally always thought the Taurus was very overrated and considering im not sure I have seen a 1st or 2nd Gen on road since 2010 I might be on to something.
The attributes that made the 1990 Taurus much more desirable as a new car aren’t important to someone forced to choose between 30 year old used cars.
This was the point where I think American Honda’s stubborn approach to options started to become obnoxious, because much of this equipment was available on the CB Accord in Japan: automatic temperature control, keyless entry, and antilock brakes were all optional; I’d have to look at the press kit to see about the power driver’s seat, but a power seat was available on the CB Vigor/Inspire, so there was no particular reason it couldn’t have been offered on the Accord whether it was or not. However, the U.S. sales organization decided to either not import some of those features or to package them in frustratingly rigid tiered ways.
I don’t see the bench seat or power passenger seat as any great loss, but the Accord’s rear seat was not one of its assets — the seat back was set at kind of a weird angle, I figure to make the back seat seem roomier than it was. That plus the mouse belts and the lurch-and-thump dual-shaft automatic were not great, which would make a later EX five-speed the sweet spot.
It doesn’t look like a full power driver’s seat was offered on the JDM Accord, at least at launch, but it was included on the top trim level of the Ascot, which was the four-cylinder Accord’s JDM twin, sold through the Primo channel.
The Honda’s didn’t have engines that broke, though. Or transmission issues. That alone makes the Accord a better buy.
I have several Consumer Reports “Annual Auto Issues” from the 1990s. The survey results mirror your experience. The pre-1996 Taurus and Sable were very reliable until the fourth or fifth year of ownership. Then the reliability of the cars literally falls off a cliff.
The primary problem was with the 3.8 V-6. It blew its head gaskets. It’s power output was too much for the automatic transmission, so owners were hit with that failure, too. Cars equipped with the 3.0 V-6 avoided these issues – I know people who racked up well over 100,000 trouble-free miles with those drivetrains. Unfortunately, the air conditioning system was still problematic in all of those cars.
A coworker’s Di-Sable suffered head gasket and transmission failures well before the five year 50,000 mile mark. He nicknamed it.
Ooo – I had the 1990 Ex accord, silver, 5-speed maroon velour. Loved it.
We had a ’93 Accord 4 dr, manual and it was a very pleasant car to drive. The stick made it quite enjoyable at times. In addition it was a very nice medium green metallic with a “mouse fur” ivory interior……far nicer “hand” than the polished burlap bag ivory fabric in my ’20 Accord!
I can’t remember what Honda the ’93 Accord was traded in on (our red ’96 Accord?), but in retrospect I must say that the ’93 Accord is one I still rather miss along with my first 4 wheeled Honda: a base ’88 Civic hatchback, stick. Both of these Honda’s left very favorable memories, and they were good at passing gas stations! 🙂 DFO
It’s all a bit silly, the dull Corolla thing, isn’t it. I did lots of miles in a somewhat dog-eared version of this gen, and it had lots of entertainment, given the whip. And the proper wide-angle twin cam job, with 135 hp, 7,500 rpm redline, and a bit of stiff in the suspenders, that was just plain good fun (driven only once). Were any of them as tactile as, say, a Peugeot 205? Not at all, but on their own terms, they were never dull – and outside of France, 205’s are all gone to god.
The Hondas were a peak, handsome, fast, excellent handlers, slightly short-travel in ride, but high-end in feel, though it must be noted that they never had nice steering. And they seem to smoke before the Corollas do, and in (very) general terms, Hondas then and until a lot later never had the unbreakable quality of the competitor. The high-end feel wasn’t quite reflected in the long-term performance.
The transmissions in the hondas are a bit weak, they are great if not abused. People tend to put them in reverse or drive while still rolling in the opposite direction, that kills them