By on December 13, 2017

1990 Honda Accord Coupe

In 1990, the Nintendo Game Boy was flying off store shelves, neon clothes was very much in vogue, and President Bush was busy denouncing broccoli. And — oh, yeah — Honda rolled out a new Accord for the 1990 model year.

With a strong visual presence giving it a refined and contemporary look, the Accord Coupe made the best of its expansive greenhouse and flush-fitting glass. Before you protest, I know the above Accord is not a DX … but the one after the jump is. I think it’s fabulous and I know you do, too.

The 1990 Accord’s profile is defined by a superb but subtle character line which curves smoothly along the upper body, uniting the rounded front with the squared-off rear. The side windows, set just 3mm (just over a tenth of an inch) from the metal, were 17 percent bigger than the previous Accord, while the windshield was a full 20 percent larger. Its hood dives to the pavement while the rear deck lid stands tall.

This was a very good looking car.

1990 Honda Accord Coupe

Three trims were on offer in America for the 1990 Accord Coupe: base DX, mid-level LX, and high-zoot EX. The Ace of Base choice was available in five different colors, ranging from Frost White paired with a red (!) interior, to the Phoenix Red example shown above.

Under that low hood was a 2.2-liter inline-four making 125 horsepower in the DX, mated to a manual transmission. Diminutive 14-inch wheels inhabit each corner wrapped in 185/70 rubber, laughable today but par for the course back then. No matter; four-wheel double wishbone suspension gave the ’90 Accord handling characteristics that allowed it to outperform the vast majority of its competition.

Base model Accord Coupes were no stripper models but eagle-eyed fans could pick out the DX trim from a mile away thanks to its flat-black bumpers. Standard equipment included such items as tilt steering, a tachometer, a full length centre console, and heater vents for rear passengers. Sure, these items seem mundane today, but in 1990, they were features often skimped on by most manufacturers.

If I was donning my Hammer pants and heading to the Honda store for a $12,145 Accord Coupe in 1990, the sole option I would spec would be air conditioning. Making the $4,000 walk up to the LX would have been a non-starter. In today’s funds, I would have been signing a note for just a hair over $24,000.

A very-sharp looking manual-shift coupe with a trick suspension for just over twenty-four large? That’s definitely an Ace of Base shoo-in.

Older metal from years past which looked good in base form? They help make automotive history a lot better. Any others you can think of, B&B? Let us know in the comments. Naturally, feel free to eviscerate this selection.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

65 Comments on “Ace of Base Redux: 1990 Honda Accord DX Coupe...”

  • avatar

    I had a 1992 LX coupe – charcoal gray, five-speed. It was a fantastic car! Incredible suspension and darn near perfect shifter and clutch. My recollection at the time (I was in my 20s then) was that it was leaps and bounds better than anything you could buy from the “Big Three” or even Toyota. It felt like the engineers spent countless hours sweating over the small details. My only complaint was the somewhat weak engine – but it would eagerly rev to make just enough power when needed. Makes me nostalgic for the Honda of old!

  • avatar

    I had a 91 LX coupe, five-speed – white with blue interior.
    Rode well, handled great – even when I put cheap tires on it.
    The manual was easy to use and the power was fine.
    I had it for 12 years and 160,000 miles.
    It started to rust in the typical for the time Honda places – near the rear tires – and I was itching to get something new.
    Bought a new 2003 Accord LX sedan – 5 speed – absolutely hated that car. Horrible driving position and the brakes clunked from the time I bought it. Honda couldn’t (or wouldn’t) fix it. So I dumped it a year later.
    But that 91 is still probably my favorite car.

  • avatar

    Those sight-lines…that simple and clean interior. Gads. I know we look at these with rose-colored glasses, but it WAS a stellar car. Amazing that we were able to survive with “only” 125HP. But with that smooth shifter, this was a truly enjoyable car to drive.

  • avatar

    This Honda has such good lines and good looks, that you just can’t stop looking at it…even 28yrs on. Styling perfection. Oh Honda/Acura… what happened?

    • 0 avatar

      BTW… I never owned one of these Accords, but worked with people who had this car and an ’87 Prelude <another awesome/beautiful Honda).

      For myself, I owned a 1984 Gen1 CRX (on which I installed the OEM AC add-on kit myself :) and a loaded 1993 Civic EX Coupe 5-speed. That CRX was HUGE inside!

      Drove them both all across the USA. To this day, still two of the most trouble-free & reliable cars I have ever owned. Those 2 Honda, on all thrusters… 100% complete satisfaction.

      I could see myself in a 2018 Accord, but I just can't get past 2 things: No normally aspirated V6 option, and that non-integrated tablet sticking up out of the dash. Deal-breaker, I just hate them.

      Don't like enough things about the Camry over the Accord (I feel its generally too 'boy-racer'/over the top)and dislike the center panel of dash plastic, to allow for the V6 & built-in. NAV screen.

      • 0 avatar

        As cool as the option of a V6 would be, the 80’s and early 90’s Accord never had them until 1994/95 unless you purchased an Acura. So in a way they are turning back to their roots in that perspective.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        One of the things I like about Honda cars is that they make relatively refined 4 cylinder engines with pretty good NVH characteristics. Good enough so that you don’t continually wish you’d paid more for the V6. I’d be more concerned with their transition from naturally aspirated to turbocharged than the loss of the V6.

        • 0 avatar

          George & johnds, yes I agree with you both. Certainly both of my Hondas then did, in fact have 4 cylinders, and they were flawless.

          i think the V6 thing with me on the new Accord equates to what I just went thru on my new 300. When shopping cars, I had V8 tunnel vision for the ‘sake of’ a V8 (also told myself likely would be my last V8 ever on new, so maybe bragging rights). (until I drove & felt the V6) As well as the fact that I had so many V8s across decades, makes & models, harder to break away.

          George hit it here on the real heart of the matter that applies for me with any brand. Normal aspiration vs turbo. I personally just do not want a turbo in a car that I am purchasing. A lease is a diff story, but these days I like to own my car outright so the turbo makes it a no in that scenario.

          Turbos are ‘hot’ these days, but be nice if Honda did a rock solid, larger displacement non-turbo 4, modern version akin to what john was saying about early Honda.

          I wouldnt be one of them, but I think many peeps will buy the new Camry, even if they dont much care for over top styling, simply because it has a solid V6 under the hood available.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            As a $6000 upcharge from the 4 cylinder, I don’t think many peeps will be buying a V6 Camry for any reason. That’s a…what’s the term…*f_load* of money for an engine upgrade in a mainstream vehicle.

            Turbos are everywhere now, most people have accepted them knowingly or otherwise. I think there are plenty of other reliability areas to be concerned with, such as what happens when those tablets lodged into the dashboard of every vehicle fry outside of warranty.

          • 0 avatar


            there was no ‘reply’ button under your comment, so i clicked here to respond.

            honestly, i had no idea that much $$ I figured the V6 would be required in package B or C on the top model, but wow that is alot for that level vehicle to get the V6.

            never went to camry configurator because i had no interest. now just for hell of it, im gonna go build one and see how it prices out equipped as I’d like if i was to buy one. thnx.

            as far as turbos, i get what you’re saying about being mainstream now, but i just dont personally want one as long as there are still other options out there. and yes, for better or worse… those are dwindling away quickly.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Yeah, it’s nutters. $36K MSRP is too high for a Camry, even equipped with a nice engine like that. Honda’s HiPo 2.0T is available as a $2000 upcharge on their EX-L or $4500 on the Sport, for a $30-32K total whichever way you go. I prefer the linear build in power from the big sixes and believe Honda is sometimes overhyped, but in this case the Accord is a no-brainer to me.

            Enjoy your 300, though, that’s an increasingly rare kind of car. I haven’t had the opportunity to drive a Pentastar 8spd yet, but it seems to impress in just about every application. It even moves a RAM 1500 with more gusto than one would expect.

    • 0 avatar
      Clueless Economist

      I agree with everything you wrote. I would only add that the 1990 interior was excellent (clean and functional) as well. Honda went from best-in-class to worst-in-class. New Civic is the first step to cleaning up Honda’s interior design nightmare.

  • avatar

    I missed the pop-up headlights of the previous gens. (Owned an ’86 LXi and an ’87 DX, both hatches).

  • avatar

    You can’t tell me Honda couldn’t sell boatloads of these with the addition of the current 1.5 Turbo, six speed manual or good modern automatic, a couple extra airbags, and better rust proofing. Nothing Honda has made in the last 15 years is half as good looking or easy to see out of.

    • 0 avatar

      I know what you mean, though the Civic Coupe with the 1.5 has been selling like gangbusters (Even the hatchback is basically sold out whereever you look) so I am not sure Honda has any incentive to do a throwback to the semi-wedge era.

      Not that I wouldn’t want it, but Honda sales aren’t suffering for now.

    • 0 avatar

      No, they couldn’t, as they would not meet any modern standards, even with “a couple extra airbags” (which would mean it would have 2 total, as the 1990 Accord had 0 airbags).

      You “just put xxxx modern fearures on a ’57 Chevy and it’ll sell like crazy” folks need to wake up and smell the coffee. It simply does not work that way. Go browse eBay and craigslist for a pristine 1990 Accord with low miles. That’s the closest you’re going to get in 2017. Sorry.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    This is the car that changed the automotive landscape forever as well as the Camry. It was affordable and extremely high quality, night and day over any of the Detroit 3 offerings. The only reason I can think of that my dad would not look at one would be some inner racism to Japanese products (he was old school).

    Probably the first, non Panther platform, car offered for sale that realistically could be used for 200k miles with a minimal of fuss.

  • avatar

    Clean smooth and lightweight.
    Very nice.

  • avatar

    Peak Honda. I drove a 1990 Civic LX 5-speed sedan hard for 15 years and 150K+ miles, including bashing around construction sites heavily loaded. Virtually nothing broke, stopped working, or fell off the whole time. The only non-scheduled-maintenance issues were a worn-out belt pulley, a couple of CV joints, and a dead resistor box.

  • avatar

    Compare this to the “smashed from the factory” designs Honda is rolling out now, such as the Civic, C-HRV whatever thing, overwrought everything else…

    AND THE HONDA RELIABILITY REPUTATION IS NOW RIGHTFULLY DYING.’Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, etc are more reliable..

    New Civic, Accord, PILOT are all middling in reliability, AT BEST, and their Acura (fallen from grace, also) you repeated are even more overpriced versions of same steaming Honda piles of garbage.

    p.s. Good luck with improving reliability with overheating, coolant leak-prone, turbocharged, CVT-transmission, garbage interior materials in improving Honda/Acura’s precipitous reliability/durability free fall.


    • 0 avatar

      Yep… its sad, but the truth hurts. I forgot to mention the CVT in my earlier comment too, but that and the turbos alone make the new Accord a no-deal for me.

      BTW DW on a sidenote here… although I have owned 22 vehicles, (7 new), you were a strong influence on my decision for my new car (which is a purchase, not lease) Thank you for all your detailed input/experience here, specifically on the Chrysler 300.
      Mine is a 300S and the car is fantastic. It has the feel & presence of my Aunt’s ’12 E350… maybe even better overall. It was a leftover new car, got -$11,500 off.
      The 300 is big, solid, (size/weight of my 1979 Cadillac) old-school in the good ways, and quiet too. It’s powerful, normally aspirated, rear wheel drive and at almost 4300lb, still gets true 29-31mpg on the highway. After driving the 6, I took the V8 requirement off my list. Dash material a bit cheap by today’s standards, but the leather is real and top notch quality with excellent interior ergonomics. And, although a polarizing car with extreme subjective looks, I love the styling & presence of the car… moving or parked. TY

      • 0 avatar

        Enjoy your 300S!

        It’s a FANTASTIC sedan, more luxurious and solid than many competing vehicles costing as much as 2x as much (real world transactions).

        It’s also mechanically reliable with the outstanding 3.6 liter/8-speed transmission.

        • 0 avatar

          Thanks. I’m really liking the mix of sport & luxury the ‘S’ model offers. The NAV/UConnect is best interface I’ve used in any car, and… the Pano roof is HUGE! 3.6/8-speed combo is likely the most bulletproof out there today. The 300 is one rare bird these days.

          *apologize to all for going off topic for a sec here on the 300. TIA

    • 0 avatar

      I cannot agree with your Kia/Hyundai assumptions as I have heard many troubling stories of self destructive engines.

      • 0 avatar

        Hyundai/Kia had a big, timely (unlike GM or Honda are prone to act) recall to address the issue, and they did address it admirably.

        That changes nothing regarding the overall trend of the reliability of Honda/Acura (precipitous decline) vs Hyundai/Kia (still increasing).

        Based on the last 5 years, and projecting forward based on those trends, Honda will be essentially middle of the pack, or possible, bottom quarter, of ALL makes sold in the U.S. by 2022 (Honda is actually nearing middle of the pack status now, overall, actually).

        Honda’s new fleet of vehicles are blowing up a reputation for reliability that took it 40 years to build.

        • 0 avatar

          They addressed it admirably! By at first only recalling ONE of the several cars they put that $hitty engine in. Only after a whistle blower blew it wide open for them did they finally recall others. They still fight people on warranty claims for that exact engine.

          You go buy a phucking Hyundai and pretend its better than a Honda. Honda’s worst car is better than Hyundai’s best any day of the phucking week.

    • 0 avatar

      DW, this has a germ of truth (turbos, CVTs), but it seems a little over the top.

      When it was time for me to put my sister in a new car, I couldn’t tell her with a straight face that an Elantra or Forte was a better long-term investment than a ’16 Civic. Especially the base Civic with a naturally aspirated K-Series Four and the legendary Honda stick (yes, she stirs her own, bless her heart).

      I think initial reliability and long-term durability are getting smushed together here. Honda has real problems it didn’t used to have with initial quality. But based in part on reports made elsewhere on this site, I still have suspicions about whether Korea Inc’s products are really intended to be built to last. (Notwithstanding that they frequently dishonor their vaunted warranty, and it can take you two weeks to get a replacement window for an Optima – what’s that all about?)

  • avatar

    I remember going out with my father and cross shopping the 1990 Accord with the Camry, Taurus and Lumina. What people forget about the Accord of this era is that is basically was a compact car by today’s standards, ditto the Camry. Still recall my Dad saying “It’s a great ‘little’ vehicle but I can’t fit my family in this.” Honda didn’t get his business until they bloated their vehicles to their modern proportions, and today my dad is a loyalist with a garage of nothing but Honda and Acura. Of course something was lost there in the fun to drive factor with the heavy fat Accords, but surely not sales.

    As a teen back then (at least where I lived) the Taurus SHO was the drool worthy hotness in the family sedan segment, not the Accord coupe. 125hp vs 220hp, pfft, most kids talked power and the SHO had it in spades. Then again the senior high parking lot had far more Mustang’s and Camaro’s than Honda’s back in those days.

    • 0 avatar

      Yep, the Taurus was yuuuge comparatively.

      I’ll have a Sable. #lightbar

    • 0 avatar

      I remember renting the Lumina and Taurus back in the mid 90s.

      The Lumina was a POS in comparison, and Taurus was at least functional utilitarian. They are big, that’s about it, but they drove like POS and the interior quality was POS. It feels like you are pushing a Tupperware cart across the street vs riding on a bike, and the seats felt like pillow on picnic bench vs a real chair.

      Lumina disappeared on the road as soon as Hertz stopped renting them, and Taurus at least dragged on in low income neighborhood for another 10 years.

      • 0 avatar

        Yeah, if only the Taurus hasn’t come with an American badge, it would be okay to say it had a better balance of ride and handling for the most part, had more room, was well built for its price point, had an airbag long before Accord (and never had motorized belts like the Accord had until 93), had far superior crash test reaults, had a generous list of standard equipment including a 3.0L V-6 at the same price point as this Accord with a rated 30 MPG hwy while providing 20 more hp and a truckload more torque that doesn’t have to be wound out to hell to access, and that it outsold all competitors of the era.

        Really too bad its an American car, or we could say those things. Instead, we must be as creative as possible when talking about how horribly awful it was and how everyone hated it. Oh, and its for poor people only, the only losers who had one because they couldn’t afford anything better, like maybe a Hyundai Excell or a Yugo.

        Btw, don’t mistake my love for my horrible low income Taurus as hatred for the Accord. It excelled in areas the Taurus didnt, and vice-versa. I should know, I’ve owned multiple copies of both cars. Which one do I have now? That being said, the other is on my short list for a second car with a manual as I miss a stick-and-clutch since giving them up a few years ago. It won’t replace my Taurus, it will coexist, providing me the opportunity to drive a nice handing car with a firmer ride coupled to a manual when my chronic pain allows it, and to cruise comfortably in a better riding car with an automatic when my pain necessitates it (which unfortunately is more often than not).

        Taurus had its faults, but even as socially rewarding as it is among the B&B to bash American cars, it had many strengths as well.

        • 0 avatar

          “with a rated 30 MPG hwy”

          I’ve never seen or heard of a Vulcan that cracked mid 20s mpg, even on the highway.

          The Taurus is as others described, a “car by the pound” sort of car. Roomy and comfy at a reasonable price, and for many families that was just the ticket (’92-’95 Taurus was best selling midsizer IIRC). But it had many short comings as well, and just in terms of fit/finish and build quality, the Japanese blew their American contemporaries away.

  • avatar

    This really takes me back! I remember going to the local Honda dealer with my sister in late 1990. She had just graduated high school (and I was only 15) and she wanted something larger than her ’85 Honda CRX. Her ’90s “power hair” could barely fit into that thing…

    She decided on a Frost White ’91 Accord DX 4-door (5-speed manual). The black bumpers and door handles looked especially stark against the bright white paint. The only options she chose were the dealer-installed A/C and AM/FM cassette with separate CD player (the stereo cost more than the A/C). Thankfully, the ‘red’ interior on Frost White models was changed to navy blue for ’91…I’d take a smurf over a bloodbath anyday!

    It was a great car but she decided that she needed an upgrade a few years later. She bought a teal green (Arcadia Green, technically) ’93 Accord EX 4-door. My dad and his wife bought the ’91 DX and drove it for 11 more years. It had just over 310k miles on it when my step-mom was in an accident that totaled it. Great car.

  • avatar

    It’s important (I think) to remember that Honda beat Toyota to market with their “modern” mass market sedan by two full years. Comparing this Accord to the (1988) Camry on sale at the time – what a huge difference there.

    • 0 avatar

      I don’t think the Camry was quite as blown out of the water as you’re making it out to be Corey. The Camry’s 4cyl was competitive power wise, to say nothing of the V6. They were comparably sized in terms of interior room (I think). The Toyota had a better/smoother ride, the Honda undoubtedly handled better and was more fun to drive for those that cared for such a thing. Interior design/quality is more or less a wash, bother were better than average for the era. I’d say more dramatically was how far the ’92 Camry blew everyone out of the water. A 4th or even 5th gen Accord feels like a tin can to drive relative to a modern midsizer, the 92-96 gen Camry (in decent mechanical condition) can honest-to-god still go toe to toe with most modern midsizers in terms of NVH control and ride comfort.

  • avatar

    Still a beautifully proportioned vehicle. I appreciate it more today since the current cars are pretty ugly. Truthfully though, in 1990, there was very little difference in sedan and coupe designs. 626, Camry, Lumina, E-Class, 80/90 or 100/200; it didn’t matter–they were all pretty much upright rectangular with slightly rounded corners. But Honda’s details were among the best. Mom’s ’98 LeSabre played out yesterday, so she chose a 30K mile, ’15 Lacrosse. I drove it and was thinking about my old ’90 Accord’s slimmer A-pillars as opposed to those. While my Accord was a 4-door EX, I have yet to own a car with a more ergonomically fitting interior. I could close my eyes and instantly touch every switch and button needed. The shifter was much better than my Fit’s. This coupe is a classic.

  • avatar

    From what I understand, relays, distribuors, timing belts, and rust are this cars biggest troubles. These didn’t get an airbag until 1992 so get used to auto-seatbelts.

    I briefly owned a teal 92 LX Sedan myself. It didn’t look bad but you could stick your​ finger through the rear wheel well into the rear seat due to rust.

    The interior was nice other than a very shakey center mirror, no doubt loosened up due to the bad hydralic motor mount (these are chores to replace).

    The engine was gutless with an automatic, really the whole car felt more like a fancy Civic than a real mid-sizer.

    I don’t see these with any nostalgia, as a kid the only Honda that mattered was the NSX, the Accord was too small for our family.

    My example was a classic craigslist cruiser, hidden rust, shady history, badly installed CD player, nasty hail damage, awful paint over spray. Sadly this is the majority of older craigslist Hondas, and I say this after sampling many, many examples.

  • avatar

    I want one…if I could only find one in good shape.

  • avatar

    My dad had a 1991 Accord Coupe. He bought it when he finally gave up on GM, and he never owned another GM for the rest of his life. He had a monster commute at the time, and the Accord coupe was the best car available for it at any price.

    It was a fantastic car. I learned to drive in it, I learned change the oil and rotate tires on it with my dad, and I still miss it sometimes. We drove it with minimal maintenance hassles until I fell asleep at the wheel in it in 1997, with 199,800 miles on the odometer.

    I never found anything comparable to it in that era.

    We own a 2016 Honda Civic now, and it’s fantastic in all of the same ways — except 25 years newer. My wife also had a monster commute, and the Civic is one of the best cars available for that duty cycle at any price. Our plan is to replace it with a Tesla Model 3, but she’s grown rather fond of the Civic — so talking her into the more upmarket Tesla may be harder than expected when the rollout reaches us.

  • avatar

    I helped a friend buy a ’92 DX coupe (auto) a few years back, he paid $950 for it with 130k miles and it needed a power steering hose and front brakes (stupid hub over rotor design), oh and a thermostat some time on. He drove it drama-free for a few years including 4 hour drives to NYC to see his gf. We turned it around and solid it for the $1950 asking price it was listed for on CL after a quick detailing job. The auto dulls a lot of the fun IMO, but still a very good and reliable car in the bottom-feeder price class, even a quarter century later. They can have some serious rear quarter panel cancer and be perfectly structurally safe to drive for quite a while, the subframes do better than average rust-wise.

    Another friend had a ’92 LX coupe he drove over from sunny California, 210k+ miles, also a very reliable commuter for him in the 3-4 years that he owned it. We replaced the front axles when one started to create vibrations at high speeds, aside from that just a rock solid car even in old age. Despite my notions of Honda double wishbone setups as being somewhat fragile, all of the balljoints and bushings on his car were still tight, no leaks from the shocks, credit the smooth Cali roads it spent much of its life on.

    Overall I think quite highly of these Accords, truly the only thing that can send them to the crusher is a snapped t-belt or an overheating condition that blows the headgasket. Transmissions and everything else really goes the distance, I’d put them in league with early 90s Camrys. The Camry has better rust protection and a non-interference engine, and a longer lasting and smoother riding suspension (IMO). mid 90s Maximas are in the running too for bomb-proof beaters, but with more susceptibility to rust (actual structural rust) than the Honda.

  • avatar

    Great looking car, but 24-large is Golf GTI territory. This Accord would need some serious upgrades to play in that league.

  • avatar

    You are forgetting the drubbing the Taurus gave the little car competition. My memories are dim, but I cannot remember any retail dealer having more than 30 days of inventory from 1987 to 1995. I also cannot remember any specific incentives for anything beyond that weird four cylinder five speed model whose name escapes me. ST-5? MT-5? Regardless, Ford was printing money on the back of that car. However, if I were buying used today it is no contest as the double wishbone Honda would be the winner. I rarely buy 27 year old cars these days. 57? Sure.I take that back. I would buy a nice second Gen SHO in a second if the price was right.

    • 0 avatar

      MT-5, and the automatic/I-4 L model.

      Thanks for bringing it up. I have love for the Accord, but the Taurus beats it in ride quality and comfort. It doesn’t handle as well, but it does handle better than the Camry, much less any of the other crap boxes below those top 3 nameplates.

  • avatar

    I was a proud owner of a 1992 Honda Accord LX 4 door sedan.

    Aside from the design which I loved, I fixed so much on that car that it drove me away from Honda and landed me in the lap of Toyota.
    I should have bought the same year Toyota Camry and I feel sorry for not doing it to this day.
    Rust prone, gaskets and hoses cracking all over the place, weak stereo, unstable steering at over 90 mph, air conditioning problems, paint problems.
    To this day Honda has not been able to match Toyota in the quality of paint!
    Otherwise, I still have to see another car that will show you when the 3rd stop light is burnt out and those huge windows were awesome.
    Changing from a Chevy Corsica to Honda Accord was a night and day experience.

    • 0 avatar

      True about the paint. A lot of 90s Hondas I see have a pretty interesting patina going on. Most of the Camries of the era still look like they just rolled out of the showroom, it’s pretty amazing.

  • avatar

    I drove a blue 1990 LX coupe through the entire decade of the 90s. Still the best car I’ve ever owned, but I don’t miss the motor-driven automatic shoulder belt. The only problem I had with it was a dodgy engine mount a couple of years in. Memories of the actual problem are hazy (something about a plate in the mount that slides back-and-forth to change the damping characteristics at idle), but I’ll never forget visiting the dealer when they were trying to diagnose it and seeing a bundle of wires going under the hood. They had a set of microphones in various locations in the engine compartment, connected to a Radio Shack audio mixer in the passenger seat. The service manager told me they found the problem by listening to each microphone in sequence while driving it to pinpoint the source of the noise.

  • avatar

    In 1990 my father was planning to trade in his 82 Accord, thought the new one was too big and got an SE-R instead.

  • avatar

    Like many of you here, my family owned one of these Accords as well. My dad bought a 1990 Honda Accord EX in navy blue and I remember it well. It was a great car and the seats were really, really good. Better than the GM and Ford products we owned before the Honda.

    Our neighbors had a 92 DX in burgundy (fugly). Another set of neighbors had an identical car as ours. Another set of neighbors had a 92 LX. These things were everywhere in middle class America. Those that didn’t have Hondas in our neighborhood bought the Acura Legend.

    I always liked the way the 90-91 Accords looked. I never care for the 92-93 model, specifically how the changed the tail lamps and slightly altered the EX wheel design. You Accord connoisseurs know exactly what I’m talking about.

  • avatar

    In case anyone wants a rust-free fixer-upper example on the cheap:

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    My friend’s Dad was a big Honda guy. He had an ’84 MT Accord sedan and his wife had an ’89 auto sedan. He could afford Bentleys but he loved his ’84. He went to the local Acura dealership to get his wife a new, fancier sedan so that the kids could have her ’89 ( no way they were getting his ’84 ) and instead came home with a piece of paper that said he now owned a car that hadn’t actually been built yet. It was Western Canada’s first NSX. He later got his wife the excellent ’92 Accord; the kids got the awesome ’89; and he still drove his ’84 to his senior VP job downtown. The NSX was just for weekends – and for occasional rides for his kid’s friends.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Socrates77: The ecoboost from ford, specially in the raptor is way better engine. I wish they made a ecoboost v6 in a...
  • Daniel J: Let’s not mention how environmentally unfriendly it is to manufacture chips. It’s so expensive...
  • ToolGuy: Country club – is that where the Trilateral Commission has its meetings? (Or am I thinking of the...
  • ToolGuy: @Slavuta, Shhhhh. South Dakota could contain one or more ICBM site(s) [I can’t say]. If such territory...
  • ToolGuy: Russian family is watching the evening news – announcer say taxes on vodka will be going up. “This...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber