For the second time in my life I find myself looking for a decent car with an automatic transmission (2nd time - 2nd wife). I am looking <$4000, and I know I want another Honda, so that leaves me in the <1998 >125k miles range.
I have yet to see one without some seeping leak in the transmission. They always claim that they haven’t had to add fluid. It seems to be gaskets only, but who knows. Please share your experiences.
Second, there is always a significant lag and kick on up-shifting, which I don’t get in a cheap old Geo Metro '97 100k miles. I know that fresh fluid and the occasional additive might improve this, but I can’t test that on a car I don’t own. I would like to hear comments about:
- Whether it’s to be expected or not
- Whether it can be adjusted out by any means
- Whether it’s a sign of impending doom; how long to live?
I have never owned an automatic transmission, but people give them away, so when it goes, just grab a new one and drop it in.
autotragic. dont go auto unless you have to. everything for a hand slapper are cheap
Honda Autos suck balls. I have an extra 98 EX auto tranny in my garage for these just ocassions.
You’re preachin’ to the choir, folks. I don’t have a choice here because I need a new driver to drive it. Also, it’ll be a mid-size (Accord) 4dr, so pickin’s are slim in 5sp. I guess I should have mentioned that. Are Toyota’s automatics (Camry) notably better?
lots of them had problems with the fill dipstick not seating porperly over time. that could be where you are seeing your fluid. Other than that, don’t worry bout it. like everyones saying, they are a dime a dozen and easy to find.
all of the honda trannies seep from the seem. it is “normal” and they don’t leak enough to have to add fluid usually. for 4K you could get a 04 taurus. but if you insist on a expensive car enjoy.
i really just do not trust automatic transmissions. i think every automatic car ive owned has had transmission issues
A little off-topic:
While I appreciate the capital cost/apparent value difference between a Honda and a Ford, I find it irrelevant. What matters to me is the TCO (total cost of ownership) and that I enjoy owning/driving/using Hondas more, and that I feel safer on the road in a nimble vehicle.
The latter two may be just perception or taste, fine, but can a '92 escort take .85 lateral G’s? That was a base model Civic hatchback in '92. I read that the Corvette ZR1 had the same rating in '92. When I plow through a giant puddle that I didn’t see, even at highway speeds, my steering stays true; hardly perceptible. I would have paid a fortune for options on an escort to match what came on my LX in '92. The Civic is still fun to drive. Fords have always annoyed me, although the Euro Focus was passable.
The first item is the $$$ difference carried to a logical conclusion. I spent good money on the Civic, for sure, but then my unscheduled maintenance has been ~$1000 in all of 15 years. All that time I got 40 MPG instead of 28: at only $1 per gallon average that’s $4625 for 185,000 miles vs. $6607. so there’s another $2g. The differences will be a lot less with an Accord automatic, but there will still be many.
I had an '83 Cressida for a while, at 170k it still had perfect engine and transmission, even after I deliberately abused it. This lousy little Geo is also still perfect at 97k. Hmmm… maybe I’ll look for a Cressida.