Accord LSi - the 3-series alternative for half the price (Honda Accord (1994-98))

Member Name: failme

Product:	Honda Accord (1994-98)
Date:	19/10/04 (1757 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Cheapness, Reliability, Handling

Disadvantages: Space, Ride, Steering

I owned a 1990 Honda Accord a couple of cars ago so this seemed to be the natural progression. The British-built '95 car isn't as well built or reliable as the previous Japanese one but it's still far superior to any of its rivals (Mondeo, Vectra, Cavalier etc.)

Speaking of reliability it's had a few problems, the electric window switch pack literally blew up - apparently because of the previous owner's dodgy attempts at repairing the wiring. The fuel injection system had a bad earth which caused the car to fail to start when the weather was cold or very wet, without the help of a hairdryer. The cruise control doesn't work. The seat adjuster (for backwards-forwards motion) has broken. The passenger side window has come off its rails (common on this car - watch out). The rocker cover gasket was blown but didn't really leak that much oil.

Other than that it's a decent older family car for people on a budget (ours cost £1200 but you can pick them up for as little as £700).

The interior is good enough, other than the hideous rejected '80s Eastern European airport checkout lounge velour on the seats and door panels, and the equally hideous optional fake wood trim. Comfort levels are fine as long as you're not planning on any very long journeys, but space isn't that great (though most of us are pretty tall). The standard (on LSi models) sunroof impinges on headroom for taller drivers, the electric seat adjuster doesn't go nearly low enough.

Handling is excellent and completely fool-proof, but I have had the tail break away at high speeds around wet corners on fast A-roads (don't try this at home...), but it was easy to catch, other than that all it'll do is understeer safely and progressively, even Scandinavian-flicking it doesn't make the tail want to break (come the first snowfall of the winter that may change :-D). It's utterly composed at high speeds on country roads and you can make very fast progress, if you like. But for the composed handling you pay a penalty in ride quality (it's lumpy at best). But it's (surprise surprise) so much better than a base E36 BMW 3-series - the one I drove was boring and the body control was woeful despite it being billed as the better driver's car, BUY AN ACCORD INSTEAD! The steering is vague and light on the Accord, as it is with most Hondas. They can't ever seem to get their steering right, an '04 Civic I tried was even worse.

The engine is wonderful, it's basically the same as my previous Accord other than it's fuel injected; it's completely unburstable, wails like a touring car at high revs, gives decent fuel economy (30mpg is the norm despite generally being driven quickly on rural roads), has 130mph potential, and gives more than adequate performance as long as it doesn't have a full complement of passengers. Maintenance is easy for a home mechanic too, with all the usual bits easily accessible and cheap to buy.

The body is still holding together very well despite being a near-10 year old car, there's only a speck of rust in the usual place for these and their sister car, the Rover 600 and that's the bottom edge of the rear wing where it meets the bumper.

Considering you can buy an anaemic, boring, high mileage, cramped E36 318i for twice the price of this car I don't think I'd have much trouble choosing the Accord.

Summary: