Ask an expert
![jannietsplitter](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
Hi there, looking at buying a 2002 Honda Accord import done 53,000kms. It has one owner who has had it for 2 years but only put 10,000kms on the clock since they bought it. A dealer has also offered me a trade in Accord 2006 which is also an import done 105,000kms. The newer car has 8 airbags but that is the only other difference I can gather, to me they look the same. The prices are within $300 of each other. I want to keep the car for a while so which one is the better bet in terms of reliability and resale?
My head is saying the low kms model but have concerns around buying a soon to be 11 year old car
![ABayliss](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
I'd be more inclined to go for the 2006 car. As you say, the other car is now 10 years old, but also it is the very first of the new model, so while the two cars look the same, there wll almost certainly be some engineeering upgrades beyond what you can see. 105,000km is still not a high mileage plus you are getting the benefit of the additional safety features.
![jannietsplitter](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
Thanks ABayliss! Hubby and I have been researching on the internet and there is a sizeable amount of negative reviews of the Accord's automatic transmission. Most of these are from the states but they refer to the 2.4 version which is the one built in Japan. They seem like they break down early and are very expensive to repair. We are now thinking of going for a 2004 Toyota Runx auto with the VVTLI engine. The dealer says we would get as good a performance from this 1.8 engine as we would from the 2.0 Accord. Is this a proven engine for Toyota and what do you think about the Honda vs Toyota debate. We are thinking it may be easier to sell the Toyota in a few years as we do high kms travelling from Te Kauwhata to Auckland to see grandkids
![ABayliss](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
This car is a very different proposition to the Accord Euro. The Toyota Runx/Corolla 1.8 has a bullet-proof reputation. Being a smaller car, the performance is likely to be similar, but it will not be as comfortable and refined as the Accord.
While the Toyota's reputation is very solid, there is no such thing as a 100% reliable car, and you will be able to find any number of negative comments on the web about any car you choose.
Any automatic transmission will be expensive to repair if it fails. In our experience (including a number of cars on the AA's own management fleet) the later model 5 speed Honda transmissions have given very little trouble. Consultation with a leading automatic transmission repairer, he tells us that the later Honda transmission generally gives no more trouble than any other.
![jannietsplitter](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
Thanks once again. What qualifies as later model- is that 2003 onwards? Also what is different from the VVTLI engine compared to the VVTI? Will fuel consumption be better on one?I would like the Accord but it is just dear husband and myself so we're wondering if all the extra space in the Accord will be worth it. He thinks the 1.8 will be more efficient than the bigger Honda even on long trips so we will save on fuel
![ABayliss](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
We're particularly talking about Honda's 5 spped auto that came out in the Accord Euro from 2002/3. The VVT-i is an engine with variable valve timing and VVTL-i is variable timing and lift - the latter is likely to be marginally more efficient. However, the advice would be to buy the best car you can as the difference to your fuel bill will be minimal. Likewise, while the 1.8 litre Toyota will be slightly more frugal, the fuel consumption difference won't be huge.
![jannietsplitter](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
Thanks again for your help.We've committed to the car now pending a new WOF. It went through today and passed but the owner showed me a comment which said "WOF warning- Rust forming on rear cross member".. What does it mean and will it be expensive to fix? The owner assured me it was surface rust- should I get this ckecked out by a mechanic or a panelbeater? By the way it passed the WOF so I assume its otherwise warrantable.
![ABayliss](themes/aaAle/images/interface/profile-pic-placeholder.47cf740a.png)
Normally, I would say avoid any reference to corrosion. However, if it is on a cross member, this is a sturdy piece of steel so it is most likely to be surface rust not affecting anything structural. However, I would advise having it treated and protected by a panel/paint shop.