1989 Honda Accord LX 2.0L (carbureted) from North America
Summary:
The best car I have ever owned in terms of overall quality
Faults:
Replaced shock absorbers (156,000).
New power steering rack (154,000).
New water pump (150,000).
New exhaust system (catalytic converter back) (150,000).
Re-built alternator (performed on the car with a Honda kit) (150,000).
New drive belts (150,000).
Converted OEM A/C system from R-12 to R134a (80,000).
New stereo speakers (140,000).
Painted the car (130,000).
New radiator (140,000).
General Comments:
What can I say, other than it's a Honda, which means excellent build quality that doesn't quit. At 157,400+ miles, it's just breaking-in.
The car rides like it's brand-new, handles extremely well, has excellent vision all-around, and looks like it just rolled out of the showroom after a complete re-paint in 2011 (clear coat had worn out).
By 21st century standards, of course, it's decidedly old-tech in terms of somewhat higher cabin noise levels at highway speeds, ancient, uncomplicated OEM radio with tape deck and limited range, no airbags, and a complete lack of cup holders, but who cares? The car is extremely pleasant to drive, is frugal on gas (38 MPG at highway speeds without the A/C), roomy for 4 (5 in a pinch), has tons of front-seat legroom, a spacious, flat trunk, all power accessories, and is as durable as a piece of boiler iron. It always starts (OEM starter motor) no matter what the weather, and after reaching normal operating temperature, it can keep up with anything on the road once it gets going.
As for things I would improve, the front disc/rear drum brake set-up could use more boost, the small OEM 185 x 70 tires and 13" wheels provide safe but minimal bite, the 96-HP carbureted engine has to work hard to move the car from a standing start or climb steep hills with a full passenger/cargo load onboard, and the engine's notorious 2-bbl. carburetor has more vacuum lines than Carter's got pills, plus its high and low idle speeds are so difficult to adjust that even experienced Honda techs warn you to "leave it alone unless it stops running". My Dad (from whom I inherited the car) should have spent the extra bucks and ordered the fuel-injected engine, but the carb version is fine so long as you understand its limitations and drive within them, like any car.
I've been rebuilding the car component by component as required, but have spent so little money on it over the last eight years that it owes me nothing compared to the cost of replacing it. It's a fine around-town vehicle that occasionally gets to stretch its legs on the interstate at 75 mph without fuss. I love the fact that people make offers on it all the time, but no sale. This is a keeper, and I am very proud to own a machine that seems to defy time itself.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 26th December, 2014
30th Dec 2014, 01:20
Can't agree with you more. The '89 Accord was THE choice in its class back when it was new in the showrooms and was in great demand. As a result, the didn't come cheap. I think my Dad paid $13,452, a considerable amount even then, but it was well worth it. Honda's have a well-earned reputation today for outstanding quality and longevity, and models such as the '89 helped create that legacy. I would have liked it if he had bought the 2DR "i" version, which didn't look like the staid "Dad's car" LX that I inherited and was a lot faster, but I can easily live with the car I have.
28th Dec 2014, 04:08
Good review. Hope that carburetor (and myriad of vacuum lines/devices) lives long and prospers ;)