Old HONDA almost too good to be true in Wisconsin
- Thread starter SumpChump
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
It's getting a lot of "piece of junk" votes here too.
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror. It's a granny car, and there's a very good chance it doesn't have A/C. Probably not too many Civic enthusiasts are after a bare bones sedan with a bordello red interior, no matter how clean.
Also, a "little rust," even if it doesn't look bad in pics, is probably bad enough to be a headache. If the rust is worth the seller mentioning, you will have to deal with it at some point.
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
It's getting a lot of "piece of junk" votes here too.
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror. It's a granny car, and there's a very good chance it doesn't have A/C. Probably not too many Civic enthusiasts are after a bare bones sedan with a bordello red interior, no matter how clean.
Also, a "little rust," even if it doesn't look bad in pics, is probably bad enough to be a headache. If the rust is worth the seller mentioning, you will have to deal with it at some point.
That Civic was a good car for what it was meant to be, an ultra-cheap, ultra-reliable means of very basic transportation. Honda was building very reliable cars during that period. But that car is just too old and spartan to be desireable now, at least to most people. And as mentioned, parts availability is going to be a problem., I imagine it has 13 inch wheels, good luck getting tires. A buddy of mine had the hatchback version of that car and it went well over 200,000 miles, rare for cars back then. There is an owner of an '84 Civic with a ton of miles on the forum, so not everyone would consider it junk. And my brother has a 33 year old Ford pickup that he still uses quite a bit. His main issue is parts when something fails.
I don't think it's too bad. I'm daily driving a 24 year old Accord and I don't need to constantly tinker with it or dump tons of money into it to keep it on the road. It's more reliable than many 6 year old cars. I've never had any problem with parts availability either. Mine's fuel injected though, and I don't have any experience with Honda carbs.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Definitely improvements but there is a lot of lamenting about how awesome and bulletproof these old Honda/Toyotas were. Not really better or worse than the other cars of the era.
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
Definitely improvements but there is a lot of lamenting about how awesome and bulletproof these old Honda/Toyotas were. Not really better or worse than the other cars of the era.
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
I don't think it's too bad. I'm daily driving a 24 year old Accord and I don't need to constantly tinker with it or dump tons of money into it to keep it on the road. It's more reliable than many 6 year old cars. I've never had any problem with parts availability either. Mine's fuel injected though, and I don't have any experience with Honda carbs.
I agree....I had an old Accord from the 80's that was had a carb. Never an engine light or hose/vacuum problems in it's life. As mentioned before, I sold it running perfectly at 225K miles.
I don't think it's too bad. I'm daily driving a 24 year old Accord and I don't need to constantly tinker with it or dump tons of money into it to keep it on the road. It's more reliable than many 6 year old cars. I've never had any problem with parts availability either. Mine's fuel injected though, and I don't have any experience with Honda carbs.
I agree....I had an old Accord from the 80's that was had a carb. Never an engine light or hose/vacuum problems in it's life. As mentioned before, I sold it running perfectly at 225K miles.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I think that era had dual A-arm suspension in all for corners, so while its not fast, it might handle surprisingly well and it weighs around a ton. Also you can see out of it.
Slap some modern rubber on it, and it might be a fun little car to zip around in.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I think that era had dual A-arm suspension in all for corners, so while its not fast, it might handle surprisingly well and it weighs around a ton. Also you can see out of it.
Slap some modern rubber on it, and it might be a fun little car to zip around in.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I was simply stating why this car isn't "too good to be true." Take a deep breath and calm down. It's not desirable to most old Civic shoppers, and one of the few things the owner tells us about it is that it has rust. Yes, it's a $700 car, and it would be worth less if it didn't look as clean as it does.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I was simply stating why this car isn't "too good to be true." Take a deep breath and calm down. It's not desirable to most old Civic shoppers, and one of the few things the owner tells us about it is that it has rust. Yes, it's a $700 car, and it would be worth less if it didn't look as clean as it does.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I think that era had dual A-arm suspension in all for corners, so while its not fast, it might handle surprisingly well and it weighs around a ton. Also you can see out of it.
Slap some modern rubber on it, and it might be a fun little car to zip around in.
Nope.
Struts in the front and an axle in the back.
Still handles like a go-kart. Kinda rode like one as well, although the '86 was much better than our '76 in that regard.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I think that era had dual A-arm suspension in all for corners, so while its not fast, it might handle surprisingly well and it weighs around a ton. Also you can see out of it.
Slap some modern rubber on it, and it might be a fun little car to zip around in.
Nope.
Struts in the front and an axle in the back.
Still handles like a go-kart. Kinda rode like one as well, although the '86 was much better than our '76 in that regard.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I was simply stating why this car isn't "too good to be true." Take a deep breath and calm down. It's not desirable to most old Civic shoppers, and one of the few things the owner tells us about it is that it has rust. Yes, it's a $700 car, and it would be worth less if it didn't look as clean as it does.
You stated "the problem" from a fashion-victim perspective. That's the right perspective for determining market value, but if you aren't a fashion victim, its only "the problem" if you're considering the car as a "future classic" investment.
Otherwise, a less desirable car, if you pay what its worth (which is, of course, the trick), is likely to offer similar function for less money.
Your other comments (rust, etc) are probably the ways to bet.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: CKN
On many other forum/boards this would be a "piece of junk". Here, on BITOG-it's a "find".
Yea-right!
The problem for this car is it was a bare bones econobox model when new, and won't check off any boxes for enthusiasts except for intact clean interior and having a manual.
If it were a CRX or something else desirable to enthusiasts, it would probably be worth at least a grand or two more, but this one doesn't even have a passenger side mirror.
Could it be the OP doesn't want to pay "a grand or two more" and doesn't give a rat's [censored] whether its "desirable to enthusiasts"?
I was simply stating why this car isn't "too good to be true." Take a deep breath and calm down. It's not desirable to most old Civic shoppers, and one of the few things the owner tells us about it is that it has rust. Yes, it's a $700 car, and it would be worth less if it didn't look as clean as it does.
You stated "the problem" from a fashion-victim perspective. That's the right perspective for determining market value, but if you aren't a fashion victim, its only "the problem" if you're considering the car as a "future classic" investment.
Otherwise, a less desirable car, if you pay what its worth (which is, of course, the trick), is likely to offer similar function for less money.
Your other comments (rust, etc) are probably the ways to bet.
I guess "problem" was the wrong word to use. I didn't mean problem as in "OP should not buy this car," but problem as in "this is why this seemingly clean Civic isn't worth much."
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
Last edited:
80's fuel injected American cars were pretty good. I owned and know many people that owned those cars with 150-200k+ on them.
The Civic pictured is 30 years old and look at the picture of the right side - you can see the underbody is rotted away. I have a rule to never look at a car parked on grass.
The Civic pictured is 30 years old and look at the picture of the right side - you can see the underbody is rotted away. I have a rule to never look at a car parked on grass.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
You've provided a perfect example of the "ire" I mentioned in my previous post.
To deny that American cars went through a tough period where low quality and reliability were well known...is an example of ignoring facts. No, not every american car of the '80's was junk...especially the late '80's...but the main reason American automakers were forced to improve WAS the asian auto market and the reliability/quality/efficiency over most American models.
This isn't about patriotism or flag waving either.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
You've provided a perfect example of the "ire" I mentioned in my previous post.
To deny that American cars went through a tough period where low quality and reliability were well known...is an example of ignoring facts. No, not every american car of the '80's was junk...especially the late '80's...but the main reason American automakers were forced to improve WAS the asian auto market and the reliability/quality/efficiency over most American models.
This isn't about patriotism or flag waving either.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
It isn't exactly the same but it's similar, the best PC of the 80's isn't even close to a cheap tablet of 8-10 years ago. The best 20-30 years old vehicle isn't close to average vehicle 20-30 years newer.
The 80's PC is/was likely to be a pretty standard IBM clone. It had modular, replacable components, an easily opened case with lots of room in it, and its hardware and software are likely to have been generally well understood and documented.
The cheap tablet of ten years ago will tend to have proprietary hardware and software. The case won't be easily opened or easy to work in. The components will be highly integrated, so failure of any part of the unit is likely to require the replacement of the whole, and it'll have marketing-driven functionality and innovation/obsolescence that, if it didn't exist, wouldn't need to be invented.
So no, it isn't exactly the same as with cars, but as analogies go, its not bad.
It isn't exactly the same but it's similar, the best PC of the 80's isn't even close to a cheap tablet of 8-10 years ago. The best 20-30 years old vehicle isn't close to average vehicle 20-30 years newer.
The 80's PC is/was likely to be a pretty standard IBM clone. It had modular, replacable components, an easily opened case with lots of room in it, and its hardware and software are likely to have been generally well understood and documented.
The cheap tablet of ten years ago will tend to have proprietary hardware and software. The case won't be easily opened or easy to work in. The components will be highly integrated, so failure of any part of the unit is likely to require the replacement of the whole, and it'll have marketing-driven functionality and innovation/obsolescence that, if it didn't exist, wouldn't need to be invented.
So no, it isn't exactly the same as with cars, but as analogies go, its not bad.
I parked next to one of these old Hondas yesterday. Wow, I remember these from high school. Very reliable, easy on gas, fun to drive.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
You've provided a perfect example of the "ire" I mentioned in my previous post.
To deny that American cars went through a tough period where low quality and reliability were well known...is an example of ignoring facts. No, not every american car of the '80's was junk...especially the late '80's...but the main reason American automakers were forced to improve WAS the asian auto market and the reliability/quality/efficiency over most American models.
This isn't about patriotism or flag waving either.
Plenty of Japanese cars that didn't hold up well during that time period. The 1980s S-10 was an excellent truck, the Cavalier an excellent car that would hold up along with the best Japan had to offer. I don't think flag waving had anything to do with any of my purchases ever. It had everything to do with keeping fellow Americans working. This is something every American should be concerned about, but the "all about me" crowd doesn't really care.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 80's Honda's were exceptional when compared to the other cars of that automotive decade. Same for most of the Toyota's. That was the decade that Americans realized the polar differences in reliability vs. American cars. It was also the time period that American automakers got a clue about what junk they were producing and had better get up to the reliability of Japanese vehicles.
I've owned a few Honda's of that period and one Toyota. All were superb vehicles and ran like a top. My late '80's Accord had 225K miles on when I sold it (running perfectly) to a friend at work. My same year Toyota pickup was also fantastic.
It's still surprises how the mere mention of Honda or Toyota and reliability can still raise the ire of others. In reality they should be thanked for pulling the rest of the automotive industry out of the clunker period through tough and reliable competition.
That's some Bravo Sierra right there. Lots of rose colored glasses people have. Let's just say I owned 2 80's era American cars - both made it on the original drivetrains to 175k and 150k. Neither had drivetrain issues either - were retired or traded for other reasons.
Early Hondas and Toyotas had issues as well - just that their owners thought that poop didn't stink and glossed over them.
Had Ford and GM produced the "junk" that they are portrayed as making they wouldn't have had the sales they did back then. People don't tend to buy things they have poor experiences with.
It's funny how the mention that a Honda or Toyota is "average" or "poor" raises the ire of some.
You've provided a perfect example of the "ire" I mentioned in my previous post.
To deny that American cars went through a tough period where low quality and reliability were well known...is an example of ignoring facts. No, not every american car of the '80's was junk...especially the late '80's...but the main reason American automakers were forced to improve WAS the asian auto market and the reliability/quality/efficiency over most American models.
This isn't about patriotism or flag waving either.
Plenty of Japanese cars that didn't hold up well during that time period. The 1980s S-10 was an excellent truck, the Cavalier an excellent car that would hold up along with the best Japan had to offer. I don't think flag waving had anything to do with any of my purchases ever. It had everything to do with keeping fellow Americans working. This is something every American should be concerned about, but the "all about me" crowd doesn't really care.
- Status
