So I have a 97 3.0 CL w/ 86k miles and the issue of reliability isn't really giving me peace at mind. Seems like the car is prone to a lot of problems. I recently changed the alternator and it worries me that something bigger might go bad like the transmission. I was thinking about getting another car, probably a prelude but if the car can go on for another 2 years w/o any major problems, I guess I'd keep it. What do you guys think?

 

I have a 97 3.0 with 144k and have not had any tranny problems. I did have the alternator go out at 101k but besides that I have not had any other major issues. I use to tow two Yamaha Waverunners with it for about four years and it still has the orig. tranny.

 

Mine's at 166,000, still rockin right along!

 

running strong at 72k

 

Running strong at 141k. So far replaced alternator, power steering pump bearing and seals, rear brake pads.

 

Any car with 86k miles will need normal wear type items. Used car guide books but not Consumer Reports (good only for reliability ratings, useless for car reviews) say that the Prelude would be worse for reliability than the CL because there's more electrical gadgets in it that might break. CL gets an average rating for electrical over the power moonroof part breaking. Transmission and brakes are also listed as average.

Prelude would be faster, but interior is cheap looking (I drove a '99) and the insurance is more.

I wouldn't worry too much about the alternator breaking if it was me, just about any car might have that part wear out at your mileage.

I have none of the brake, balljoint, tie rod end, suspension problems that my previous GM W body had at this mileage.